JUDGMENT : A.J. SHASTRI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against order 17.04.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2852 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition came to be dismissed. 2. The background of facts on which the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was that pursuant to the advertisement, the appellant – original petitioner filled in online form as per the requirement for the post of Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) in the Government Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges, G.E.S. (Class–II). The said advertisement bearing No.74/1617 was issued by opponent No.1 herein on 15.11.2016. While filling up the form, the appellant adequately provided all the testimonials which were required and since he was entitled to be considered, was even called for the examination. It is the case of the appellant that he filled in the form in the category of scheduled caste. The examination was conducted on 12.02.2017 and there was only one paper of multiple questions. The seat number which was allotted to the appellant – petitioner was 101000330. On 29.06.2017, respondent No.1 published the list of successful candidates and successful candidates were to be called for document verification personally. Since the appellant was shown in the category of scheduled caste bearing aforesaid seat number as successful selected candidate, was finding place in the merit-list on 29.06.2017, as a result of which, the appellant was called for verification of the documents. 2.1 It is further the case of the appellant that after verification of the documents of all the candidates, again a final list was published of successful candidates on 02.01.2018 and the appellant was not finding place in the said merit-list and was included in unsuccessful candidates' list dated 03.01.2018. Since the appellant was not the recipient of any call for oral interview, upon an inquiry, it was found that the seat number of the appellant which figured in the merit-list dated 03.01.2018 was with a remark that the appellant had not submitted the caste certificate and as such, was placed in the unsuccessful candidates' list. Since the appellant was not the recipient of any call for oral interview, upon an inquiry, it was found that the seat number of the appellant which figured in the merit-list dated 03.01.2018 was with a remark that the appellant had not submitted the caste certificate and as such, was placed in the unsuccessful candidates' list. This, according to the appellant, being apparently erroneous and arbitrary, immediately on 05.01.2018, the appellant again submitted all the documents including the caste certificate, but no attention was paid to nor the appellant was considered which constrained the appellant – petitioner to approach this Court by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs :- “(A) To allow this application; (B) To issue writ of mandamus or any other order, direction to quash and set aside the unsuccessful merit list dated 3.1.2018 issued by the respondent no.1 in connection with the advertisement being 74/16-17 for the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit in Government Arts, Science and Commerce College, GES, Class II issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. (C) To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the respondent no. 1 to include the name of the petitioner as a successful candidate in the select list dated 2.1.18 to be called for the interview for the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit in Government Arts, Science and Commerce College, GES, Class II issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission being advertisement being 74/16-17 (D) Pending admission final hearing and disposal of this application to stay further process of recruitment including the interviews by the respondent no.1 the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit in Government Arts, Science and Commerce College, GES, Class II issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission being advertisement being 74/16-17 (E) Pending admission and final hearing and disposal of this application to direct the respondent no.1 to keep one post vacant for the petitioner the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit in Government Arts, Science and Commerce College, GES, Class II issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission being advertisement being 74/16-17. (F) To award cost of petition. (F) To award cost of petition. (G) To grant any other appropriate and just relief in interest of justice.” 2.2 This petition when moved before this Court, on 20.02.2018, a notice was issued calling upon the authorities to justify their action and later on 17.04.2018, the petition came up for consideration wherein on that very day, affidavit-in-reply was tendered on behalf of respondent No.1 – Commission and relying upon substantially the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 2016 decided on 16.02.2016, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition vide order dated 17.04.2018 which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal. 2.3 This Letters Patent Appeal was entertained by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.04.2018 by issuing notice upon the opponent authority and in the meantime, after hearing learned advocates representing both the sides, following order initially was passed by the Division Bench on 01.05.2018 :- “1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 2. ADMIT. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.1. To be listed for final hearing on 14th June 2018. Meanwhile the respondents are directed to keep one post of Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) in Government Arts, Science and Commerce College, GES, Class-II, in SC Category, vacant till then.” 2.4 This interim relief was extended from time-to-time and later on, the matter came up for consideration finally before this Court. 2.5 By this time, one Jasuben M. Parmar moved a Civil Application being Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 with a prayer to be joined as party to the proceedings and considering the fact that the said applicant being necessary party, was allowed to be joined on 04.12.2018. Later on, it appears from the record that said Jasuben M. Parmar filed another Civil Application being Civil Application No. 2 of 2018 for vacating the interim relief which was granted by the Division Bench after hearing learned advocate for the Commission. With this background, the present Letters Patent Appeal has come up for consideration before us. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashok A. Purohit for the appellant – petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for respondent No.1 – Gujarat Public Service Commission and learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for newly added respondent No.3. 4. Learned advocate Mr. With this background, the present Letters Patent Appeal has come up for consideration before us. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashok A. Purohit for the appellant – petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for respondent No.1 – Gujarat Public Service Commission and learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for newly added respondent No.3. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashok A. Purohit appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is too technical in nature and not in consonance with the spirit in which the reservation is provided. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the letter which was written by the appellant was not reflecting an admitted fact, but it was a fact in which the appellant though had provided the certificate, but through some inadvertence, the same is left out and again this certificate is being provided. Now, these wordings of the letter written by the appellant have been stated to be not taken in right spirit by the authority and have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, as a result of which, a request is made to set aside the order. 4.1 It has further been contended by the counsel that the appellant filled in the form from the beginning for the post in reserved category and was conscious about the fact that the said application required an appropriate certificate which, according to the appellant, was already provided. Initially, it was the case of the appellant that though the certificate was provided, through some mistake, the same might have been lost by the office, however, be that as it may, well within reasonable period, again the same was provided with immediate effect and as such, the appellant's case ought to have been considered. It has further been contended that here is a case in which the authority has not come out with any stand that there is any other infirmity except non-supply of caste certificate, otherwise the fact that the appellant applied in the reserved category, his application was scrutinized and then was called for examination, is not in dispute and further that at no point of time, the authority had even prior thereto, called upon the appellant – petitioner about this so-called infirmity nor an intimation was given to supply the same. The appellant is fully eligible and his belonging to the reserved caste community as qualified candidate should not have been given differential treatment. It has further been contended that this is purely a issue related to non-supply of caste certificate. Beyond that, there is no other circumstance coming in the way of the appellant and the moment the appellant found that his seat number is placed in the list of unsuccessful candidates and that too only on account of non-supply of caste certificate, within two days only, the same was supplied with immediate effect. Even in letter dated 05.01.2018, it has been emphatically stated that this was produced, but how it has not been with application or left out is not understandable. It has further been provided that at no point of time, even the authority instructed to supply and therefore, that letter ought not to have been construed in the manner in which it has been suggested. This error crept in by the learned Single Judge deserves to be corrected. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Purohit, by referring to his additional affidavit which has been tendered before this Court, has categorically stated that on the contrary, this issue about belated supply of caste certificate has been a subject matter of formulation of guidelines as time and again, either the candidate or the Commission was confronted with such eventuality and as such, after referring to this issue, even a policy and guidelines have been framed by passing an order on 04.06.2018 wherein it was categorically observed that when such fact is noticed by the authority, the concerned candidate must be given 10 days' time to supply such caste certificate. The tenure of such order indicates that it is an obligation of an authority to intimate the relevant candidate to supply the caste certificate and as such, since here the appellant was not given such time, the action on part of the authority dehors their own policy itself. It has further been contended that even no opportunity immediate was given which was required to be extended to the appellant before placing him in the list of unsuccessful candidates. It has further been contended that even no opportunity immediate was given which was required to be extended to the appellant before placing him in the list of unsuccessful candidates. Had the opportunity been given with immediate effect, the same would have been rectified and here, even within a very short time, such rectification is done, however the authority in an arbitrary manner has not considered the case of the appellant and has acted contrary to the spirit of reservation by depriving equal opportunity. It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this material aspect, as a result of which, the order deserves to be corrected. Apart from this, according to learned advocate for the appellant, the reliance which has been placed on a decision delivered by another Letters Patent Bench referring to the facts situation was altogether different and as such, could not have been resorted to and by submitting aforesaid circumstances, a request is made to allow the Letters Patent Appeal by granting reliefs as prayed for. 5. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondent – Commission has vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that it is in fact a lapse which has resulted into such a situation and for that, no fault can be found of the authority. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon a decision delivered by the Division Bench in another Letters Patent Appeal which is referred to, as a result of which, in absence of any infirmity, the order may not be disturbed. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further contended that admittedly, the appellant himself has not supplied the caste certificate and now, has made an attempt to find fault with the authority. This conduct has rightly not been encouraged by the learned Single Judge, as a result of which, the appeal has not merit. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi has further submitted that enough opportunity is given to the appellant and the candidate like him several in numbers and since no discriminatory treatment is meted out, there is hardly any case made out by the appellant. On the contrary, if the case is considered, the same would be granting premium to the appellant over his own mistake. Learned advocate Mr. On the contrary, if the case is considered, the same would be granting premium to the appellant over his own mistake. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that in communication dated 05.01.2018, the appellant has admitted that he committed a mistake in not supplying the caste certificate and so when this is a position, there is hardly any case available with the appellant and furthermore, this large scale recruitment which has been made by the Commission would be derailed on account of such isolated cases if to be entertained. As a result, since no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge, the order does not call for any interference. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the learned Single Judge, while considering the case of the appellant, has also considered the affidavit-in-reply which was filed at the time of hearing of main Special Civil Application and in turn, the stand of the Commission that it is not correct to state by the appellant that there is any inadvertence on part of the office of the Commission to lose the certificate. Even apart from this, learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the guidelines which have been referred to and relied upon issued vide order dated 04.06.2018 in respect of verification of the application are not of any avail to the appellant and as such, according to learned advocate Mr. Joshi, no case is made out by the appellant. 6. In addition to this, learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi representing the newly added respondent has mainly adopted the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Joshi and has contended that on account of this controversy, though his client i.e. applicant of Civil Application No. 2 of 2018 was interviewed and selected and is placed in the waiting-list in the scheduled caste category, this litigation is on the contrary depriving her legitimate right of being employed pursuant to the selection process. Hence, since the mistake is committed by the appellant himself, there is hardly any case made out by the appellant to call for any interference. Resultantly, a request is made to confirm the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, since the mistake is committed by the appellant himself, there is hardly any case made out by the appellant to call for any interference. Resultantly, a request is made to confirm the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge. Few decisions have been relied upon by the learned advocate to assist the Court which would be referred to in this judgment at an appropriate stage and with this background, the Court is called upon to deal with the issue cropped up essentially about non-supply or late supply of caste certificate by a candidate. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, few circumstances are firstly to be highlighted which are reflecting from the record before deciding the main controversy. 8. First of all, it is not in dispute that the appellant – petitioner had applied for the post in the category of scheduled caste candidate. It is also not in dispute that the appellant – petitioner is having an adequate requisite qualification and went through preliminary test conducted on 12.02.2017. Furthermore, it is evident from page 52 of the compilation that his candidature has not been processed further only on account of non-supply of caste certificate. On perusal of communication dated 03.01.2018 reflecting on page 51, it appears that out of 17 candidates who have been placed in the list of unsuccessful candidates, insofar it relates to the appellant, the only reason related to non-supply of caste certificate. As against this, upon perusal of communication dated 29.06.2017 attached at Annexure – C Page – 39, the seat number of the appellant – petitioner reflects in column No.5 at page 41, which is the candidates' seat numbers who have been found to be suitable and are to be called for interview and verification of the relevant documents. 9. As against this, upon perusal of communication dated 29.06.2017 attached at Annexure – C Page – 39, the seat number of the appellant – petitioner reflects in column No.5 at page 41, which is the candidates' seat numbers who have been found to be suitable and are to be called for interview and verification of the relevant documents. 9. Additionally, as per the say of the petitioner – appellant, his seat number was placed in the category of unsuccessful candidates, though having possessed the passing standards and when the same was pronounced on 02.01.2018 and consequently pronounced on 03.01.2018, within no time having come to know, the appellant wrote a letter on 05.01.2018 itself pointing out that he is aware about the fact that he has given the copy of caste certificate, but still if by chance, through inadvertence, the same is not found, it has been supplied along with such communication on 05.01.2018 itself and it has been pointed out clearly in last paragraph of the said communication that had there been brought to the notice of the appellant, at relevant point of time itself, the same would have been, but there is no such communication nor informed to the appellant. However, a request was made to excuse the same inadvertence and call for the personal interview. From this communication, and the gist thereof, it is culled out that the appellant was sure about supply of said caste certificate, but to the surprise if through inadvertence, the same is supplied along with the communication. Now, this communication appears to have been considered by the authority as an admitted position which prima facie is not digestible. Further fact that such a certificate which is placed on record at page 55 said to have been supplied along with the aforesaid communication, genuineness thereof is not in dispute by the authority at all. The only reason is that within a stipulated time, the appellant has not supplied the said caste certificate. 10. Indeed a fact cropped up of the aforesaid circumstance, a perusal of the guidelines which are received by the appellant through R.T.I. and placed on record before us by way of additional affidavit is the most relevant material in the form of office order dated 04.06.2018. 10. Indeed a fact cropped up of the aforesaid circumstance, a perusal of the guidelines which are received by the appellant through R.T.I. and placed on record before us by way of additional affidavit is the most relevant material in the form of office order dated 04.06.2018. This order is issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in respect of process of verification of the application and the documents along with it. As postulated, certain steps are to be initiated and the obligation is appearing to have been caste upon the authority to inform the relevant candidate. Clause – II (7) reflecting at pages 103104 indicates that whenever such eventuality has taken place about non-supply of caste certificate, a candidate must have been informed to supply within 10 working days. So these guidelines which are reflecting in office order indicate that the concerned candidate must have been informed moment it is found some lacuna about non-supply of caste certificate and there is clear assertion on part of the appellant before us that the authority has never communicated to the appellant to produce his caste certificate. It is only when the list of unsuccessful candidates was placed on official website on 03.01.2018, the appellant came to know about this eventuality which led him to approach this Court. 11. The aforesaid background of facts is in overall reflect that on account of inadvertence of either side, the caste certificate is left out to be produced. Otherwise, so far as the merit of the appellant is concerned, the same is not in question at all and there is no other infirmity pointed out before us by the counsel for the Commission. 12. This controversy has led us to recapitulate the proposition of law laid down on the issue on object of reservation and for grant of equal opportunity. Few decisions delivered by the Apex Court and other High Courts have examined the purpose and object of reservation. Hence, we deem it appropriate to discuss hereinafter since found to be most relevant. 12.1 In case of Manoj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and ors. Few decisions delivered by the Apex Court and other High Courts have examined the purpose and object of reservation. Hence, we deem it appropriate to discuss hereinafter since found to be most relevant. 12.1 In case of Manoj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and ors. being Writ Application No. 52826 of 2013 decided on 30.03.2017 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the High Court has also dealt with similar issue wherein the candidate was asked to submit O.B.C. Certificate on newly approved format within 21 days from the date of interview and his candidature was cancelled only on the ground that he failed to submit his O.B.C. Certificate in the prescribed format within 21 days as required. There also, the concerned petitioner mentioned that in the application form itself, it has been clearly mentioned about the category of O.B.C. and he had been processed as if he is a candidate of O.B.C. The issue of non-submission of O.B.C. Certificate within cutoff date was considered in that eventuality by the Allahabad High Court and after considering the decision delivered by the Apex Court as well as after considering the constitutional mandate of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ application and directed the authorities to issue appointment order. The relevant observations contained in the said decision, we deem it appropriate to reproduced hereinafter :- “Issue of non-submission of OBC certificate within cut off date was dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 . Facts before the Apex Court were that the respondent Board invited applications for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi by publishing an advertisement in newspaper. The appellant submitted his application form before the due date and participated in the selection proceedings and he was short-listed for selection but his name did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. On enquiry, he was informed that he was not selected to the post for the reason that he had failed to submit the OBC certificate before the last date of submission of application form. Petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi. On enquiry, he was informed that he was not selected to the post for the reason that he had failed to submit the OBC certificate before the last date of submission of application form. Petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of High Court of Delhi. Learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of Pushpa Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 SCC Online Del 281 and disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondent to reconsider the application of the appellant and other aggrieved candidates against OBC category, which was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge, which was assailed before the Apex Court. The question of law that arose before the Apex Court was whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the OBC category or not? Aforesaid question was answered in affirmative and appeals were allowed by the Apex Court. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below: "The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281. In that case, the Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The Single Judge in Pushpa case correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 as well as Valsamma Paul, (1996) 3 SCC 545 . The object of providing reservation to the Scs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The object of providing reservation to the Scs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Article 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the directive principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney case and Valsamma Paul case. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya, WP (C) No.382 of 2009, order dated 24.11.2010 (Del) is hereby restored." It has been further held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that a certificate issued by the Competent Authority to the effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence and the purposes of such certificate is to enable the Authorities to believe in assertion of the candidate that he belongs to reserved category. Relevant portion of report is reproduced below : "11. .... 15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-6-1999 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 he 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. If a person is SC he 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. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationable objective sought to be achieved. 16. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the fundamental rights and directive principles of the Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case, SCC OnLine Del paras 15-16)" Similar controversy has been dealt by the Apex Court in Dheerender Singh Paliwal Vs. UPSC reported in LAWS (SC) 2016 (4) 96. In the aforesaid matter, the appellant had applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer in Forensic Science Laboratory and came out meritorious in the selection process. He was denied the appointment on the ground that the required qualification certificate was not enclosed along with application submitted by him. Appellant filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, which was allowed by the Tribunal, against which writ petition was preferred before the High Court of Delhi. He was denied the appointment on the ground that the required qualification certificate was not enclosed along with application submitted by him. Appellant filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, which was allowed by the Tribunal, against which writ petition was preferred before the High Court of Delhi. Said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. The controversy was finally adjudicated by the Apex Court and it was held that if there was any doubt about any of the qualification, the appellant should have been called upon to produce the required certificate. The relevant paragraph No.10 of the report is reproduced below : In the first place, it must be stated that it is not a case of the appellant not possessing the required essential qualifications but was of only not enclosing the certificate in proof of the added qualification of Zoology as one of the subjects at B. Sc. Level, from a recognised University. In the application when once the appellant, mark 1' against column No.9 and thereby confirmed that he possess the essential qualification namely the post graduate qualification as well as the degree level qualification, if at all there was any doubt about any of the qualification, the appellant should have been called upon to produce the required certificate in proof of such essential qualification............" From perusal of record, we find that the petitioner applied under the OBC category for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering and he had mentioned in his application form itself that he is applying under the OBC category and he submitted the hard copy of online application form along with his testimonial/documents and caste certificate as required. The OBC certificate submitted by the petitioner with hard copy of application form was on old format. Vide interview letter dated 31.10.2012 issued by the Commission to the petitioner, he was not informed that he has to submit the OBC certificate on newly approved format. He was informed by the Commission on the date of interview itself that he has to submit his OBC certificate on newly approved format within 21 days from the date of interview. Vide interview letter dated 31.10.2012 issued by the Commission to the petitioner, he was not informed that he has to submit the OBC certificate on newly approved format. He was informed by the Commission on the date of interview itself that he has to submit his OBC certificate on newly approved format within 21 days from the date of interview. We also find from the record that the petitioner submitted the certified copy of OBC certificate on newly approved format within aforesaid period of 21 days, which was lacking information relating to advertisement number and the name of post applied for, hence he again sent the certified copy of the OBC certificate on approved format by speed post on 28.01.2013. We also find from the record that the name of petitioner found place in the select list on serial No.27 but his candidature was cancelled by decision dated 03.05.2013 of the Commission, merely on the ground that required OBC certificate on prescribed format was not submitted within a period of 21 days from the date of his interview and secondly that he submitted the certified copy of his OBC certificate on prescribed format on 28.01.2013 by speed post, which was inadmissible in absence of original OBC certificate. As a matter of practice, certified copy of a document is submitted by the candidate and its original is shown at the time of interview. But the petitioner was informed on the date of interview itself that he has to submit the OBC certificate on newly approved format within 21 days of his interview. The candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on 03.05.2013, after submission of the certified copy of OBC certificate on approved format by the petitioner on 28.01.2013. As such a period of more than three months was remaining between the date of submission of certified copy of OBC certificate on approved format and the date of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) and Dheerender Singh Paliwal (supra), we are of the view that sufficient material was available before the Commission to believe that the petitioner belongs to OBC category. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) and Dheerender Singh Paliwal (supra), we are of the view that sufficient material was available before the Commission to believe that the petitioner belongs to OBC category. If there was any doubt at all, the Commission could call upon the petitioner to submit the original OBC certificate on approved format, before cancelling his candidature. But it is not established from the record that such step was taken by the Commission. Hence, the action of the Commission to cancel the candidature of the petitioner on the aforesaid technical ground, cannot be said to be justified in the eyes of law.” 12.2 In yet another decision on the same lines almost delivered by the Patna High Court in case of Shashi Bhushan Yadav, son of Bholanath Yadav vs. State of Bihar being Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 727 of 2018 decided on 17.05.2019, the High Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 , has held that the rejection of the candidature on account of late submission of caste certificate would amount to denial of equality of opportunity as contemplated under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39(A) of the Constitution of India and after examining the case in consideration, the object of reservation has been discussed at length and after considering the said Supreme Court's decision, a conclusion is arrived at that the authority could not have rejected the candidature merely on account of late submission of relevant caste certificate and directed the authority to reconsider the application. The relevant observation which has been contained in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the said Apex Court's decision reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 has been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the said decision. Paragraph 12 of the said decision of Patna High Court, we think it proper to reproduce hereinafter : “12. The present case is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 (Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another), paragraph Nos. 14 to 18 whereof are reproduced here-in-below:" 14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another), paragraph Nos. 14 to 18 whereof are reproduced here-in-below:" 14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa. Patna High Court CWJC No.727 of 2018 dt.17-05-2019 10/15 In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University. The learned single Judge in Pushpa also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate. 15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney has been extracted in Pushpa along with the speech delivered by Dr Ambedkar in the constituent assembly and reads thus : (Pushpa case, SCC Online Del para 9) "9..... 251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to "a minority of seats", lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated: "... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.727 of 2018 dt.17-05-2019 11/15 reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a 'proper lookin' so to say into the administration .... But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated: "... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.727 of 2018 dt.17-05-2019 11/15 reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a 'proper lookin' so to say into the administration .... Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity..... Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with subclause (1) of Article 10, *must be confined to a minority of seats*. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation ... we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, ...". [Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 70102 (194849).] These words embody the raison d'etre of reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, insofar as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal.' (Indra Patna High Court CWJC No.727 of 2018 dt.17-05-2019 12/15 Sawhney case, SCC pp. 43334, para 251)" 16. In Pushpa, relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11......'15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-06-1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including SC category. 43334, para 251)" 16. In Pushpa, relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case, SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11......'15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-06-1999 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. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved. 16. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a Patna High Court CWJC No.727 of 2018 dt.17-05-2019 13/15 right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case, SCC Online Del paras 15-16)" 17. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case, SCC Online Del paras 15-16)" 17. Further, in Pushpa, relevant portion from the judgment of Valsamma Paul case has also been extracted, which reads as under: (Pushpa case, SCC Online Del para 11) "11 .... 17. ...... "21. The Constitution through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles created a secular State based on the principle of equality and nondiscrimination, striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian social order." (Valsamma Paul case, SCC pp. 56061, para 21)' (Tej Pal Singh case, SCC OnLine Del para 17)" 18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14,15,16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the Patna High Court CWJC No.727 of 2018 dt.17-05-2019 14/15 general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) is hereby restored." 12.3 There is another decision on the similar lines delivered by the Delhi High Court in case of Tejpal Singh vs. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 120 (2005) DLT 117, wherein also, the impact of reservation and the object therein was considered and the petition came to be allowed. 12.4 Same is the case with another decision delivered by the Apex Court in case of Dheerender Singh Paliwal Vs. U.P.S.C. reported in (2017) 11 SCC 276 wherein also, the Apex Court while examining the issue about late supply of caste certificate, observed that non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioner in that case was unfair approach of the Commission having regard to the very trivial issue – non-production of added qualification as a part of an essential qualification and ultimately, the benefit has been extended to the concerned petitioner. With a view to avoid unnecessary burden of this judgment, we are not reproducing the relevant portion, but the same is also on the very same lines on which the aforesaid observations are reflecting. 12.5 The last in line is a decision which has been produced before us is a decision in case of Alok Kumar Singh and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 242 wherein also, the dispute was with regard to non-production of caste certificate/domicile certificate within time and while considering the case, the Apex Court permitted the candidate to supply the caste/domicile certificate within three weeks from the date of the decision. 13. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 242 wherein also, the dispute was with regard to non-production of caste certificate/domicile certificate within time and while considering the case, the Apex Court permitted the candidate to supply the caste/domicile certificate within three weeks from the date of the decision. 13. From the foregoing discussion, while examining the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have noticed that a substantial reliance is placed on the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 37 of 2016, but while going through the said decision, we have noticed that the facts are different in which the concerned candidate was communicated by the Commission on 24.03.2015 to remain present before the Commission. After two days, the candidate was diagonalized hepatitis – 'A' on 26.03.2015 and then after, almost a period of more than 20 days, the candidate informed the Commission about this fact and dispatched the certificate. Whereas, in the instant case, the appellant came to know about the fact of his placement in the list of unsuccessful candidates on 03.01.2018 and on 05.01.2018, without any unreasonable delay, immediately, sent it again and therefore, if the facts are different, the circumstances proposed may not be treated as precedent since it has been clearly propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court that slight change or one additional fact may make a world of difference in applying the precedent. We are of the opinion that no undue weightage be given to the decision which is taken in different factual scenario. Additionally, we also found that in the said Letters Patent Appeal, the aforesaid decisions delivered by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court on this very issue had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench and as such also, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant deserves to be reconsidered in light of the aforesaid peculiar background of facts. 14. 14. From the foregoing discussion and consideration of aforesaid proposition of law laid down by various High Courts and the Apex Court in aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered opinion that here also, when the fact is not in dispute that the appellant – petitioner did applied in scheduled caste category only and successfully went through the written examination and his candidature has been ignored only on account of late supply of caste certificate, we deem it proper to consider the case of the appellant. While setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the decision of placing the appellant in the list of unsuccessful candidate, following directions are issued which would meet the ends of justice :- (I) The respondent authorities are directed to delink the appellant's seat No. 101000330 from the list of unsuccessful candidates and after considering the caste certificate already provided by the appellant by his communication, the case of the appellant be considered for further process of appointment/recruitment. (II) The said exercise shall be undertaken as early as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 15. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.