JUDGMENT : 1. The cancellation of selection of the petitioner as General Line Teacher, District Cadre, Jammu under RBA Category in terms of Order No. 1364-SSB-2016 dated 16.11.2016 issued by respondent No. 4 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. Before proceeding to deal with the grounds of challenge to the impugned order urged in this petition, it would be necessary to briefly notice some relevant facts. 3. Respondent No. 4 vide its advertisement notification No. 06/2013 dated 10.05.2013, invited applications from the eligible candidates, inter-alia, for the post of Teacher, District Cadre, Jammu. The petitioner, who claims to be a Graduate having done his B.A from Vinayaka Mission University through distance mode in the year, 2011-12, applied for the post aforesaid. The petitioner had also sought consideration under the reserved category of RBA. The petitioner participated in the selection process, which included viva-voce test also. The select list was issued by respondent No. 4 and the same came to be published in the newspaper “Daily Excelsior” in its edition dated 02.10.2015. The select list, however, indicated that the recommendation of a candidate, who as per his merit in the RBA category is placed at serial No. 92, was kept withheld for want of bonafide certificate of Graduation. The petitioner’s claim, which is also admitted by the respondents, is that it was the petitioner, who by virtue of his merit was placed at serial No. 92 of the RBA list but his recommendation was withheld for want of bonafide certificate of Graduation. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 vide its notification dated 19.09.2016 called upon the candidates including the petitioner to submit documents/clarifications mentioned against each in the select list in terms of Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012. The petitioner, in the aforesaid notification is listed at serial No. 9. The petitioner along with other similarly situated 08 candidates were, however, afforded only 05 days’ time to do the needful. The petitioner claims that he immediately took up the matter with the concerned University and got the bonafide certificate as was requisitioned by respondent No. 4. He states that bonafide certificate was submitted to respondent No. 4 on 18.10.2016 against receipt No. 7936. The petitioner claims that he immediately took up the matter with the concerned University and got the bonafide certificate as was requisitioned by respondent No. 4. He states that bonafide certificate was submitted to respondent No. 4 on 18.10.2016 against receipt No. 7936. Respondent No. 4, however, vide impugned order dated 16.11.2016 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to submit the requisite bonafide certificate within the stipulated period. 5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner challenges the impugned notification, inter-alia, on the ground that respondent No. 4 neither in the advertisement notification nor by any subsequent notification ever demanded bonafide certificates from the candidates who had passed their qualifications from outside Universities through distance mode. It was only after the select list was published, the recommendation of the petitioner was withheld and by a subsequent notification issued on 19.09.2016, only 05 days’ time was given to get the requisite bonafide certificate from the concerned University. The petitioner, therefore, submits that adequate opportunity to produce the bonafide certificate was not given. He made out all efforts to get the bonafide certificate from the concerned University at the earliest but the process took some time and ultimately he submitted the bonafide certificate on 18.10.2016 but the respondents, without any reason or justification, cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that the order impugned is totally irrational and arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Respondent Board has filed reply affidavit refuting the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that in view of his merit in the selection, he was placed at serial No. 92 as against the RBA category is admitted by the respondent-Board. However, it is contended that since the petitioner had obtained his Graduation degree from Vinayaka Mission University through distance mode, as such, two notices were issued; one on 06.09.2016 and another on 19.09.2016, whereby all concerned candidates including the petitioner were called upon to submit the requisite certificate within the stipulated time. The petitioner, however, failed to produce the requisite documents/bonafide certificate of Graduation and, accordingly, his case was placed before the Board for consideration in its 126th meeting held on 03.10.2016. The petitioner, however, failed to produce the requisite documents/bonafide certificate of Graduation and, accordingly, his case was placed before the Board for consideration in its 126th meeting held on 03.10.2016. Respondent-Board unanimously took a decision to cancel the selection of the petitioner and as a sequel to the aforesaid decision of the Board, the impugned order was issued. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that sufficient time was not granted to the petitioner to produce the requisite bonafide certificate. As a matter of fact, such stipulation should have been, in the advertisement notification itself, so that candidates, who are relying upon their qualification obtained from the Institutions/Universities through distance mode get adequate time and opportunity to get the bonafide certificates from the concerned Universities. Admittedly, no such stipulation was made in the advertisement notification. The candidature of the petitioner along with other candidates was considered and he was allowed to participate in all stages of the selection. Indisputably, he made a grade under RBA category and having regard to his merit, he was found entitled to be placed at serial No. 92. 8. As noted above, the recommendations were withheld for want of bonafide certificate of Graduation from the concerned University. The petitioner, on being notified of the requirement, approached the University and obtained the bonafide certificate. It was submitted to respondent-Board on 18.10.2016, of course, after the period stipulated in the notification issued by respondent No. 4. The matter was placed before the Board, but the submission of bonafide certificate by the petitioner, though, belatedly, was perhaps not brought to the notice and, accordingly, a decision was taken to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. 9. In these circumstances, the cancellation of selection of the petitioner, for the reasons indicated in the impugned notification is, on the face of it, arbitrary and, therefore, cannot sustain. 10. In view of the above, I find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned notification is quashed. Respondent-Board is directed to reconsider the eligibility of the petitioner in the light of bonafide certificate issued by the Vinayaka Mission University claims to have been submitted by the petitioner against receipt No. 7936 dated 18.10.2016. 10. In view of the above, I find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned notification is quashed. Respondent-Board is directed to reconsider the eligibility of the petitioner in the light of bonafide certificate issued by the Vinayaka Mission University claims to have been submitted by the petitioner against receipt No. 7936 dated 18.10.2016. The provisions of Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 and other relevant provisions on the subject shall be kept in view while taking a final decision with regard to the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner to be appointed as Teacher. It would be appropriate for the respondent-Board to even take up the matter with the Department of School Education as also the University of Jammu to arrive at informed decision in the matter. 11. Let the respondent-Board conclude this exercise of determining the eligibility of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is made available to the Board. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found eligible, the recommendation in his favour shall be released by the respondent-Board immediately and in compliance thereto, respondent No. 1 shall issue a formal order of appointment as Teacher within four weeks from the date of receipt of such recommendations from the respondent-Board. 12. It is made clear that the petitioner, if found entitled to appointment, shall be given the appointment retrospectively with effect from the date, the candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement notification No. 06/2013 dated 10.05.2013 were appointed. This retrospective appointment shall be on notional basis with no pecuniary benefits. 13. Disposed of along with connected IA(s).