JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The unsuccessful petitioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal'), Bangalore, for the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher under Category-III-B/KM/HK is before this Court for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 made in Application No.284/2018 passed by the Tribunal confirming the selection list dated 11.10.2017, in so far as selection and appointment of respondent No.3 as Secondary School Assistant Teacher, Grade-II in under Category III-B (Woman) (Hyderabad Karnataka quota) and writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent-Authority to consider a claim of the petitioner by considering the eligibility certificate dated 23.06.2015 for the purpose of selection to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II (English Language Assistant Teacher) under category III-B (Woman) (Hyderabad Karnataka Quota). I. Facts of the case: 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teachers, Grade-II in the Education Department. Subsequently the 1st respondent has issued amended recruitment notification dated 29.09.2016 prescribing qualification to the posts respectively. The petitioner being a degree holder possessed B.Sc., B.Ed and M.Sc. degree belongs to Category-IIIB and also belongs to Hyderabad Karnataka region and as she is entitled to claim reservation under Hyderabad Karnataka reservation and qualified for the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher under Category-IIIB/KM/HK as per recruitment notification. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent has prepared and published list 1:2 for verification. The petitioner being meritorious candidate and the application of the petitioner has been accepted and the name of the petitioner finds a place at serial number 23 in the verification list published by the 1st respondent. Considering the qualification and other criteria, the petitioner was called for verification of documents scheduled on 20.08.2015 and she was appeared and produced all original documents for verification to the 1st respondent and thereafter the 1st respondent found that the documents and certificates produced by the petitioner are all found genuine and prepared and published final selection list on 12.04.2017. From the cut of percentage announced by the 1st respondent it is crystal clear that the petitioner has secured more marks than last selected candidate. The petitioner has been secured 58.57 marks more marks than the last selected candidate. From the cut of percentage announced by the 1st respondent it is crystal clear that the petitioner has secured more marks than last selected candidate. The petitioner has been secured 58.57 marks more marks than the last selected candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that even otherwise percentage for the main selection list as per Annexure-A15, respondent No.3 who is less meritorious than the petitioner has secured 56.03909% marks is selected. 4. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has made a representation on 24.11.2017 as per Annexure-A17 for consideration of her candidature. An endorsement came to be issued on 28.11.2017 at Annexure-A18 stating that she has produced certificate relating to local cadre (Hyderabad Karnataka Region Quota) obtained after last date prescribed and after receipt of application. Hence, her candidature is rejected. Therefore, the petitioner filed application before the Tribunal in Application No.284/2018 challenging the endorsement dated 28.11.2017 at Annexure-A18. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 rejected the application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties: 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 6. Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, confirming the endorsement dated 28.11.2017 rejecting the case of the petitioner and selecting respondent No.3 to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher, Grade-II is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would further contend that the State Government issued guidelines on 09.09.2015 which clearly issued direction to the Selection Committee that even if the candidate claiming reservation as a Local person at the time of submitting the application along with the affidavit declaring himself as a Local Person and the Eligibility Certificate issued by the competent authority even if produced at the time of verification of documents and same could be considered for the selection of such candidate under the reservation, the same has not been considered by the Selection Authority as well as the Tribunal. He would further contend that the impugned endorsement issued by the Selection Authority dated 28.11.2017 confirmed by the Tribunal is contrary and requires to be set aside. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 7. He would further contend that the impugned endorsement issued by the Selection Authority dated 28.11.2017 confirmed by the Tribunal is contrary and requires to be set aside. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 7. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 at para-11 of the said judgment- "11. xxx xxx xxx 17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence" 8. Per contra, Sri K.M.Ghate, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that notification issued by the 1st respondent-Selection Authority dated 23.03.2015 the last date for filing the applications was fixed on 05.05.2015. As on the last date fixed, the petitioner has not produced eligibility certificate of local person. The Authority considering the entire material on record, rightly rejected application and same was confirmed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court cannot be interfered with the impugned order. Hence, prays for dismissal of writ petition. 9. Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned endorsement dated 28.11.2017 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the last date for filing applications as per notification issued by the 1st respondent-Selection Authority dated 23.03.2015 was 05.05.2015, when the petitioner appeared for verification of documents she has produced certificate only on 20.08.2015. Therefore, Selection Authority rejected her application on the ground that she has not obtained the requisite certificate within the last date stipulated for submission of applications under reservation (HK Region) category. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of writ petition. III. The point for determination: 10. Therefore, Selection Authority rejected her application on the ground that she has not obtained the requisite certificate within the last date stipulated for submission of applications under reservation (HK Region) category. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of writ petition. III. The point for determination: 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point arises for our consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, confirming the endorsement dated 28.11.2017 as at Annexure-A18 issued by the 1st respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case?" IV. Consideration: 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully. 12. It is undisputed fact that the 1st respondent issued notification on 23.03.2015 inviting the applications for selection, inter alia, to the posts of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II in Education Department from the eligible candidates. According to the petitioner, she has possessed B.Sc.B.Ed and M.Sc. Degree and belongs to Category- IIIB and belongs to Hyderabad Karnataka region and as she is entitled to claim reservation under HK Region and she is qualified and eligible to apply for the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher under Category- IIIB/KM/HK as per recruitment notifications. Though she contended that the petitioner is legally entitled for selection as she has been secured 58.57% and lost candidature in the main selection list. Hence, under Category-GM-Others is 56.41149% ignoring the meritorious candidature of the petitioner, selected respondent No.3 who has less meritorious than the petitioner. 13. The 1st respondent by the impugned endorsement dated 28.11.2017, considering the corrigendum dated 09.09.2015 specifically clarified that the applicant who filed application in response to the notification made has to file self-declaration affidavit and if selection made temporarily or at the time of verification the applicant shall produce the documents required as on the last date fixed in the notification. Admittedly, the last date fixed in the notification was 05.05.2015, the petitioner has not obtained the certificate before 05.05.2015, but produced certificate dated 29.06.2015 at the time of verification of documents, that is subsequent to the last date fixed in the notification. Therefore, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. 14. Admittedly, the last date fixed in the notification was 05.05.2015, the petitioner has not obtained the certificate before 05.05.2015, but produced certificate dated 29.06.2015 at the time of verification of documents, that is subsequent to the last date fixed in the notification. Therefore, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. 14. The Tribunal on reconsideration of the entire material on record recorded the finding that as per the notification dated 23.03.2015 the last date for application was fixed on 05.05.2015. The petitioner attended the verification of documents on 20.08.2015, she has produced the eligibility certificate dated 29.06.2015 i.e. obtained after stipulated date (subsequent to last date fixed in the notification). Since the said certificate was not obtained before the last date of submission of application, the Selection Authority declined to accept under HK-Region. The Selection Authority after considering the representation made by the applicant has issued endorsement in the light of Government Order dated 09.09.2015 stipulating procedure for submitting HK-Region certificate and the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite conditions relating to eligibility, she cannot make any grievance of it. The requirement of eligibility cannot be ignored in an individual case and no sympathetic view can be taken in such cases. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the application and the same is in accordance with law. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt, reported in, (1998) AIR SC 91 at para 6 and 7 held as under: "6. Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right from the beginning. The respondent's application was not considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent find himself. It was on account of interim orders which were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of his petition. One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent find himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing he prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others. 7. In the premises, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs." 16. It is well settled that any selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with stipulated selection procedure, relaxation of any condition relating to selection without due publication is contrary to mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Our view is fortified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others reported in, (2011) 12 SCC 85 held as under: "29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 31. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in concluding that the respondent No.3 had not treated the condition with regard to the submission of the certificate along with the application or before appearing in the preliminary examination, as mandatory. The aforesaid finding, in our opinion, is contrary to the record. In its resolution dated 21.05.2010, the Commission has recorded the following conclusions:- "Though Shri S. Khan had mentioned in his letter dated 10.12.2009 that he was resubmitting the Identity Card with regard to Locomotor Disability he, in fact, had submitted the documentary proof of his Locomotor Disability for the first time to the office of the A.P.S.C. through his above letter dated 10.12.2009. However, after receiving the Identity Card the matter was placed before the full Commission to decide whether the Commission can act on an essential document not submitted earlier as per terms of advertisement but submitted after completion of entire process of selection. However, after receiving the Identity Card the matter was placed before the full Commission to decide whether the Commission can act on an essential document not submitted earlier as per terms of advertisement but submitted after completion of entire process of selection. The Commission while examining the matter in details observed that Shri S. Khan was treated as General candidate all along in the examination process and was not treated as Physically Handicapped with Locomotor Disability. Prior to taking decision on Shri S. Khan it was also looked into by the Commission, whether any other candidate's any essential document relating to right/benefits etc. not furnished with the application or at the time of interview but submitted after interview was accepted or not. From the record, it was found that prior to Shri S. Khan's case, one Smt. Anima Baishya had submitted an application before the Chairperson on 26.2.2009 claiming herself to be an SC candidate for the first time. But her claim for treating herself as an SC candidate was not entertained on the grounds that she applied as a General candidate and the caste certificate in support of her claim as SC candidate was furnished long after completion of examination process." 32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of respondent No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list." 17. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of respondent No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list." 17. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya referred toin that case also the Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded the finding that if a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. Admittedly, the certificate dated 29.06.2015 produced by the petitioner at the time of the verification of the documents was not existence as on the last date of submission of the application i.e. on 05.05.2015. Thus, the said document will not assist the case of the petitioner, in fact it is against the petitioner. V. Conclusion: 18. The counsel for the petitioner contended that subsequently the applicant has produced HK-Region certificate, the Authority ought to have considered the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the entire pleadings either before the Tribunal or before the Selection Authority or before this Court, it is not the case of the petitioner that she has obtained the HK Region certificate as on the last date fixed on 05.05.2015. Admittedly, either on the last date of the application filed or before verification of the documents, the petitioner has not produced the HK-Region certificate on or before 05.05.2015, but the certificate produced before the Verification Committee dated 29.06.2015. The certificate obtained after the last date of submission of applications cannot be accepted. Therefore, the point raised in the writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the endorsement dated 28.11.2017 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 19. Therefore, the point raised in the writ petition is answered in the negative holding that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the endorsement dated 28.11.2017 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 19. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, confirming the endorsement issued by the Selection Authority dated 28.11.2017 in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.