JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M.S. Rawat, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned Advocate for the Intervener. 2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Public Service Commission to forthwith conduct interview, of the petitioner, to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) under the OBC Category or, in the alternative, to direct the second respondent to conduct interview of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) under the General Category; to direct respondent no. 2 not to declare the final result for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) in the examination conducted in 2017 in so far as the General and OBC categories are concerned; and to direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to forthwith issue an OBC certificate to the petitioner for onward submission to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission on 04.08.2017 inviting applications for various posts of Assistant Professors, the petitioner submitted his applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) well before the last date prescribed for submission of applications i.e. 25.08.2017. It is his case that, though he belongs to the other backward classes and had submitted a caste certificate dated 21.09.2017 on 11.04.2018, he was not called for interview; and, consequently, he was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The stand of the Public Service Commission, on the other hand, is that the advertisement dated 04.08.2017 prescribes the last date of submission of applications as 25.08.2017; Clause (2) of the said advertisement required candidates to possess the required educational and other qualifications as on the last date of submission of application forms i.e. on 25.08.2017; while Clause 14 permitted these candidates to submit documentary proof, of their possessing the required qualifications, before the date of interview, the certificate was nonetheless required to relate to the period prior to the last date for submission of applications i.e. 25.08.2017. Reliance is placed, on behalf of the Public Service Commission, on the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct for Business) Rules, 2013, more particularly to Rule 22(9) in Chapter IV of the said Rules which stipulates that candidates, who fail to produce the required certificate/ certificates on the date of interview, would not be allowed to appear in the interview, and their candidature would be rejected. 5. The Public Service Commission addressed a letter to 57 candidates, including the petitioner, on 05.10.2018 informing all of them of the deficiencies in their Application forms and the documents enclosed thereto. The petitioner's name is reflected at Serial No. 57 therein and the defect in his application form was that he did not possess the OBC certificate from Uttarakhand in force on the cut-off date of 25.08.2017. 6. In terms of the said letter dated 05.10.2018, all these 57 candidatures, including the petitioner, were required to submit the requisite certificates before 18.10.2016. The petitioner submitted a letter to the Secretary of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 31.10.2018 informing him that the Tehsildar, Haridwar was still not issuing a valid OBC Certificate as on the closing date of application i.e. 25.08.2017 and he be provisionally called for interview under the unreserved category as interviews were being held on 31.10.2018 and 01.11.2018. 7. The petitioner was, however, not called for interview. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, by interim order dated 16.11.2018, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents not to fill-up one of the posts reserved in favour of the Other Backward Classes pending further orders. 8. As noted hereinabove, condition No. 2, as stipulated in the advertisement, was that the candidates should possess all the required certificates which were valid and in force on the last date of submission of applications i.e. 25.08.2017. That the petitioner understood this condition correctly, is evident from his letter dated 31.10.2018 wherein he himself stated that the Tehsildar had not issued OBC certificate valid as on 25.08.2017, which was the last date of submission for online application forms. That the petitioner understood this condition correctly, is evident from his letter dated 31.10.2018 wherein he himself stated that the Tehsildar had not issued OBC certificate valid as on 25.08.2017, which was the last date of submission for online application forms. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not been able to obtain a valid OBC certificate, in force as on 25.08.2017, even till date; and he did not produce any such certificate even on the date of interview as stipulated in the Rules of the Public Service Commission, as referred to hereinabove. 9. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would however contend, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 , that the petitioner possessed an OBC certificate dated 21.09.2017, which he had submitted to the Public Service Commission on 11.04.2018. The fact, however, remains that the advertisement stipulated that all certificates should be those in force as on the last date of submission of application i.e. 25.08.2017, and the petitioner did not file a valid OBC certificate in force as on that date i.e. 25.08.2017. 10. In Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 , the appellant, though short listed for selection, was not among the final list of selected candidates. He was informed, on enquiry, that he had failed to submit the OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority, along with the application form, before the last date of submission of the application form. It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed that the appellant was entitled to submit the OBC certificate, before the provisional list was published, to claim the benefit of reservation under the OBC category and the entire issue should be examined not in a pedantic manner, but in the backdrop of the object of reservation made to the reserved categories. 11. In Gaurav Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others, all candidates, who asserted as belonging to a reserved category were required to produce their certificates as proof and, if they failed to do so, it would be presumed that they did not seek to claim the benefit of reservation. 11. In Gaurav Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others, all candidates, who asserted as belonging to a reserved category were required to produce their certificates as proof and, if they failed to do so, it would be presumed that they did not seek to claim the benefit of reservation. It is in this context that a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court after considering several judgments of the Supreme Court including Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 , opined that no OBC candidate was exempt from the rogour of the cut-off or last date prescribed in the advertisement or recruitment notice and failure to produce such a certificate justified the candidate not being considered for selection. 12. The conditions in the advertisement apply uniformly to all applicants. The said advertisement specifically stipulated that the educational and other certificates, valid as on 25.08.2017 (the last date of submission of online application forms), should be furnished. In terms of Clause 14 of the advertisement such a certificate, even if not submitted along with the application form, could be produced on or before the date of interview i.e. 31.10.2018. While the petitioner claims to have secured an OBC certificate dated 21.09.2017, the requirement of the advertisement was for a valid OBC certificate, which was in force as on 25.08.2017, to be produced. 13. It is not as if a post reserved in favour of the OBC category is now sought to be filled-up by a person who does not belong to the said category. On the other hand, the intervener, who was called for interview and was selected for appointment by the Public Service Commission, also belongs to the OBC category. Unlike the intervener, who submitted an OBC certificate valid as on the last date for submission of the online application forms i.e. 25.08.2017, the petitioner did not. Selection by the Public Service Commission, for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors, is entirely by interview. The petitioner was not called for interview because he had not submitted a valid OBC certificate in force as on 25.08.2017. He is, therefore, not justified in contending that he was more meritorious than the intervener who was selected for appointment. 14. Selection by the Public Service Commission, for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors, is entirely by interview. The petitioner was not called for interview because he had not submitted a valid OBC certificate in force as on 25.08.2017. He is, therefore, not justified in contending that he was more meritorious than the intervener who was selected for appointment. 14. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the exercise undertaken by the Public Service Commission, more so as the conditions, stipulated in the advertisement, are applicable uniformly to all candidates; and the petitioner was made aware by the Public Service Commission, by its letter dated 05.10.2018, that he was required to submit an OBC certificate valid as on 25.08.2017 on or before 18.10.2018. Admittedly, the petitioner did not even produce such a certificate by the date of interview i.e. 31.10.2018. In any event, it is not even his case that he possessed the OBC certificate valid as on 25.08.2017, even when he filed the Writ Petition. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the process of selection undertaken by the Public Service Commission. 15. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.