JUDGMENT : B.B. MANGALMURTI, J. 1. Instant writ application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction commanding upon the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to constitute an Interview Board for conducting interview of the petitioner under C.C.T.V. camera maintaining transparency as well as the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division), a special case if the petitioner is finally selected after viva-voce test. The alternative prayer is for issuance of quashing of Advertisement No. 10/2015 (Annexure-2) issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of 46 Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as for quashing the Clause No. 13 of the said advertisement on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to law settled with regard to allocation of percentage of marks to the interview in case of competitive examination involving candidates where nil experience is made eligible by rules. Further prayer is for quashing the Rule 16(d) of Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 prescribing for fixation of a minimum qualifying marks in the interview and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being in the teeth of the Shetty Commission recommendation which has been one of the basis behind legislation of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment), Rules, 2004 and to issue appropriate writ/order/direction upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to upload and publish on official website the results declared by it of Preliminary, Mains and interview of all competitive examinations held by it along with details of Roll number, name and category of all the candidates who participated in such examinations along with marks obtained by them. 2. The short fact of the case is that Jharkhand Public Service Commission advertised total vacancy of Civil Judge (Junior Division) giving details of vacancy category wise 23 posts as Unreserved, 05 posts for Scheduled Caste, 12 posts for Backward Class-I and 01 post for Backward Class-II and invited application through Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 from persons having degree of law and enrolled as an Advocate under Advocate Act, 1961 having age between age group of 22-35 years as on 31.01.2005. Petitioner fulfilling all requirements as per the advertisement, applied for the post and was allowed to appear in the preliminary test. Being successful, provisional admit card for appearing in the main examination was issued. Petitioner fulfilling all requirements as per the advertisement, applied for the post and was allowed to appear in the preliminary test. Being successful, provisional admit card for appearing in the main examination was issued. After declaration of result of main examination, petitioner did not find his Roll number in the list of successful candidates and then he tried to obtain information from the officials of Jharkhand Public Service Commission to know about the cut-off marks of BC-I candidate who were called for interview and also to know marks obtained by the petitioner. As the petitioner could not get the information, he filed an application under R.T.I. Act and thereafter Jharkhand Public Service Commission supplied incomplete information at the appellate stage by which he could knew that although the petitioner has obtained total 183 marks in the main examination and the cut-off marks was for the BC-I candidate was 178 but his name was in the list of successful candidate. Then the petitioner represented his case to the Chairman of Jharkhand Public Service Commission requesting him to look into his case and do justice but no reply was received. Petitioner passed his L.L.B. examination on 09.10.2013 and got himself enrolled as an Advocate vide Enrolment No. JH 76 of 2014 and also got certificate of practice from Bar Council of India dated 25.10.2014 and he started practicing in Jharkhand High Court as well as in Civil Court, Ranchi. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi advertised online Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 for appointment to the post of 46 Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 25.08.2018 and this petitioner applied and got registration number 10008076. His application was found in order during scrutiny and was issued provisional admit card bearing Roll No. 15100186 so that he could appear in the Preliminary Test examination on 25.06.2016. Jharkhand Public Service Commission declared the result of Preliminary Test examination on its website and the Roll Number 15100186 was in the list of successful candidate. Thereafter, provisional admit card was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission allowing him to appear in the main examination which was scheduled on 04.03.2017 and 05.03.2017. The further case is that after declaration of result of main examination on 11.08.2017 by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on its website, the petitioner did not find his Roll Number in the list of successful candidate and became ineligible to appear for the Viva-Voce test. The further case is that after declaration of result of main examination on 11.08.2017 by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on its website, the petitioner did not find his Roll Number in the list of successful candidate and became ineligible to appear for the Viva-Voce test. The petitioner then filed an application on 23.10.2017 to the Jan Suchana Padadhikari, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi and requested for altogether 11 information along with requisite Challan but partial information was supplied to him. Thereafter, he approached the First Appellate Officer of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. He could know from such authority that he had secured total 183 marks in the main examination and the cut-off marks for BC-I candidate was only 178, whom Jharkhand Public Service Commission had called for interview, but the petitioner was not called for the same. To fill the backlog vacancy of 20 post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Advertisement No. 11 of 2015 was issued where this petitioner was selected for the interview test where he appeared before the Interview Board on 27.04.2017 and he got only 13 marks. Hence, he wants this Court to invalidate the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in interview be held as arbitrary and unconstitutional on the ground of being contrary to the mandate of Shetty Commission recommendation. There is also challenge to Rule 21(b) of Jharkhand High Court Rules of Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointments which prescribes for one year training by the Judicial Academy to the selected candidate as well as Rule 16(d) of Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 prescribing for fixation of minimum qualifying marks in interview as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same cannot be made applicable to the examination process of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Jharkhand Public Service Commission had accepted petitioner’s O.B.C. certificate in requisite form which was applied online and treated the petitioner as a candidate under reserved category throughout the process of preliminary examination and during the main examination. Clause 16 (Gha) of the Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 provides for absolute nullification of the reservation certificates submitted after the cut-off date is beyond the scope of permissible regulation and it infringes the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner’s case is that Clause 16(Gha) thereof is liable to be struck down. Therefore, the petitioner’s case is that Clause 16(Gha) thereof is liable to be struck down. The conduct of Jharkhand Public Service Commission was bad in law as it treated the petitioner under unreserved category without giving an opportunity of hearing. Requirement with regard to eligibility condition cannot be equated with cut-off date requirement relating to submission of O.B.C. certificate seeking benefits of reservation. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s father retired from the post of Trammer from Central Coalfields Limited in the year 2004 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 9283/- and his pension was fixed at Rs.1945/- per month. O.B.C. certificate issued to petitioner on 28.03.2017 certifies that petitioner’s father had annual income below of Rs. 6,00,000/- for three consecutive financial years i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. Therefore, this petitioner is not under the category of creamy layer. The name of petitioner was left out due to negligence of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Reason for non-inclusion of name of this petitioner and the list of successful candidate by Jharkhand Public Service Commission is non-compliance of Clause 16(Gha). Therefore, Jharkhand Public Service Commission should be directed to publish the results of all three stages of examination i.e. Preliminary Test, Main Examination and Interview and result of all candidates, stake-holders be published for maintaining transparency in the process. This will minimize the scope of arbitrariness and mala fide practice and would minimize the scope of abuse of individual right under Right To Information Act. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that in the case of M.S. Pushpa vs. Government NCT of Delhi and Others, 2009 SCC Online Del 281 the Hon’ble Court held that the candidate who submitted certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement even then the Court considered and directed the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner under O.B.C. category and announce the result making available the relaxation to the O.B.C. candidates. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has also held while disposing L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017 which was filed for acceptance of caste and residential certificate which were submitted beyond stipulated time and had dismissed the L.P.A. preferred by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 4. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has also held while disposing L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017 which was filed for acceptance of caste and residential certificate which were submitted beyond stipulated time and had dismissed the L.P.A. preferred by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decisions relating to Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, 2016 (4) SCC 754 , M.S. Pushpa vs. Government NCT of Delhi and Others, 2009 SCC Online Del 281, Latika vs. Staff Selection Commission and Others, 2017 SCC Online Del 10770, L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017 with L.P.S. No. 618 of 2017 of High Court of Jharkhand dated 12th October, 2018, Surinder Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Others, (2014) 15 SCC 767 . 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3-5 Jharkhand Public Service Commission, its Chairman and Secretary, submitted that last date of submission of online application form was 17.12.2015. Clause 16(ka) of the Advertisement stipulated that candidate who were willing to claim benefits of reservation were required to mention the same in their online application form against the prescribed column failing which their candidature was to be considered under unreserved category. Clause 16(Ga) of the Advertisement provides that candidates who have claimed benefit of reservation were required to submit their caste certificates in Proforma-I and Proforma-II issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer and reserved category candidates were required to give details of their caste certificate i.e. date of issue of caste certificate, designation of the issuing authority as well as caste certificate number in their online application, failing which their candidature was to be considered under unreserved category. Proforma-II of the caste certificate is meant for BC-I and BC-II categories candidate and same was issued on 29.08.2012. Further, clause 16 (Gha) provides that candidates who have claimed benefits of reservation were required to possess caste certificate in prescribed format issued upto the last date of submission of online application form i.e. 17.12.2015 and original copy of the caste certificate was also required to be produced by the concerned candidates at the time of interview during the course of verification of the testimonials. The candidates were also required to submit scanned copies of their testimonials/certificates along with their online application form. The candidates were also required to submit scanned copies of their testimonials/certificates along with their online application form. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of J.P.S.C. further submitted that the advertisement specifically mentioned that the candidates who were willing to claim benefit of reservation were required to possess caste certificate in prescribed Proforma as mentioned in the Advertisement and issued upto the last date of submission of online application form i.e. 17.12.2015 by an officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer. Since this petitioner in response to the advertisement submitted online application form for his consideration under BC-I category and mentioned the Caste Certificate No. 6015 dated 12.11.2011, he was treated as candidate in the respective category as declared by him. Jharkhand Public Service Commission after receiving online application form conducted Preliminary Test examination 25.06.2016 and accordingly candidates were issued their admit card for their appearance in the examination. This petitioner was declared successful in Preliminary Test. Jharkhand Public Service Commission decided to conduct the main examination on 04.03.2017 and 05.03.2017 in which the petitioner also appeared. At the time of preparation of result of main examination, it was found that caste certificate as submitted by the petitioner was not valid in terms of the Advertisement and no benefit of reservation under BC-I category can be extended to him in view of the fact that said caste certificate was issued on 12.11.2011 whereas in terms of the Advertisement it was to be issued after 29.08.2012 and also in view of the fact that in the aforesaid caste certificate there is no mentioning as to whether petitioner falls within the creamy layer or not which would be evident from Annexure-III and as such the candidature of the petitioner was considered under unreserved category which would be evident from Annexure-III of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner did not secure marks equivalent to the marks secured by the last successful candidate under unreserved category and as such petitioner was not declared successful in the Main Examination, thus he was not called for the interview. The petitioner failed to submit requisite caste certificate i.e. in Proforma II in terms of the Advertisement and as such his candidature was considered in un-unreserved category and as such there is no illegality in treating the candidature of the petitioner in unreserved category. The petitioner failed to submit requisite caste certificate i.e. in Proforma II in terms of the Advertisement and as such his candidature was considered in un-unreserved category and as such there is no illegality in treating the candidature of the petitioner in unreserved category. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was well aware about the terms and conditions of the Advertisement and because of fault on his part and due to this reason he was treated under unreserved category. Learned counsel also submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Sub-Ordinate Services Selection Board and Another, 2016 (4) SCC 754 is not applicable in the instant case in view of specific terms and conditions mentioned in the Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 as the candidate was required to possess caste certificate issued in Proforma by the officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer upto the last date of submission of online application form i.e. 17.12.2015 and scanned copy of the same was to be submitted along with online application form. In the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) requirement of submission of O.B.C. certificate was not mentioned in the Advertisement and requirement of submission of the O.B.C. certificate before the cut-off date of the application was introduced by the respondent only while declaring the result on 15.12.2008 holding that the applicant was not eligible for selection to the post of staff nurse as the O.B.C. certificate was received after the cut-off date. In the present case Advertisement No. 10 of 2015, specific criteria was mentioned for obtaining caste certificate before the last date of submission of online application form. Therefore, the ratio of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and other decisions are not applicable in this case. Lastly he submitted that by now process for filling of the post of Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 is over and subsequent to this advertisement another advertisement and appointment have already been completed. 6. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that the Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 specifically mentioned requirement of certificate issued by competent authority like Deputy Commissioner/Sub Divisional Officer issuing caste certificate which could be utilized for availing reservation in this examination. 6. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submitted that the Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 specifically mentioned requirement of certificate issued by competent authority like Deputy Commissioner/Sub Divisional Officer issuing caste certificate which could be utilized for availing reservation in this examination. Since the application was invited through online process and the requirement was to upload self-attested scanned copy of certificate including certificates for availing reservation otherwise the candidate will be treated under general category and once the online application has been filled up then no alteration would be allowed or granted after the last date of receipt of online application. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner was that reservation certificate were submitted after expiry of submission of application form but those decisions are not applicable in present case as in the advertisement itself the requirement was of online submission of caste certificate issued and uploaded upto the last date of submission of application form i.e. 17.12.2015 and it was thus mandatory for the candidate to possess caste certificate in prescribed format issued by the competent authority. Admittedly, this petitioner was having a caste certificate issued on 29.08.2012 from which the petitioner could not derive any claim under the reserved category. Admittedly, the case is not of a late submission of caste certificate but is a case of not uploading the proper certificate which was not issued upto the last date of submission. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers attached with this application as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent, it would appear that the prayer of the petitioner was to order to constitute an Interview Board for conducting interview of the petitioner as a special case. Alternative prayer is for quashing of Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and quashing of Clause No. 13 of the said advertisement, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as the case of competitive examination involving candidates with nil experience is made eligible by Rules and even the quashing of Rule 16(D) of Jharkhand Judicial Service (Rules), 2004 prescribed for fixation of minimum qualifying marks in interview. This petitioner was aggrieved by the manner in which the Jharkhand Public Service Commission initially treated him as reserved category candidate during holding of Preliminary examination and allowed him to appear in the Main examination but at the time of declaration of Main examination treated his candidature as an unreserved category candidate. The reason being that the caste certificate uploaded by the petitioner was not found proper. So far as the decisions relied upon by this petitioner including the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and the decisions in L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017 with L.P.A. No. 618 of 2017 of this High Court, in all these cases the requirement of submission of certificate within a cut-off date was not mentioned in the advertisement but the same was introduced before declaration of result. In those cases, certificates were submitted by the candidate after cut-off date so it was case of late submission of caste certificate although submission of caste certificate was not a requirement in the advertisement. In the present case, the requirement of submission/uploading of caste certificate issued till a particular date i.e. last date of submission of online application form and keeping the original copy of caste certificate to be produced by the concerned candidate at the time of interview during course of verification of testimonials was specifically mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner did submit the scanned copy of the certificate but the same was found not proper. Therefore his candidature was treated to be from unreserved category, while the results of main examination were processed. Therefore, in this situation, prayer of petitioner could not be allowed at belated stage as process for filling of the post of Advertisement No. 10 of 2015 was over and subsequent to this advertisement, another Advertisement No. 11 of 2015 was issued and this petitioner had appeared for interview and process of appointment in that advertisement have completed by now. Therefore, the prayer of petitioner cannot be acceded at this stage. Before us, argument of the writ petitioner was advanced on this point only and other prayers pertaining to declaration of certain provisions of Selection Rules as illegal were not really pressed. Moreover, as we find nothing illegal in rejection of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates as per Rules, discussion on other issues would have become merely academic exercise. 8. In the result, instant application is dismissed. Moreover, as we find nothing illegal in rejection of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates as per Rules, discussion on other issues would have become merely academic exercise. 8. In the result, instant application is dismissed. Since the main prayer is declined, therefore, no further order is required to be passed on the other prayers made in the writ application.