Madhuresh Prasad, J.—Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-State. 2. The petitioner was an applicant at the 63rd Combined Competitive (Main) Examination for appointment conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the‘B.P.S.C.’). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner’s case is that by mistake she left the original provisional certificate of Graduation at home while going for the Interview which was scheduled to be held on 12th September, 2019. 4. The learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that being a bona fide mistake, the petitioner made a plea before the Authority for being granted 45 minutes to produce the original of the provisional Graduation Certificate. Such plea of the petitioner was not acceded to and her candidature was rejected for non-production of the original testimonial being the provisional Graduation certificate. It is submitted that the petitioner produced all other original of testimonials as well as duly attested copies as per requirements contained in Clause-2 of the interview letter (Annexure-3) and as such she should have been allowed time to produce original of the provisional graduation certificate. She prays for a direction to the respondent- Commission to publish her result. It is submitted that the petitioner produced all other original of testimonials as well as duly attested copies as per requirements contained in Clause-2 of the interview letter (Annexure-3) and as such she should have been allowed time to produce original of the provisional graduation certificate. She prays for a direction to the respondent- Commission to publish her result. Clause-2 of the Interview Letter reads as follows:— ^^02- vki fuEufyf[kr izek.k i=] vad i= ,oa vU; dkxtkr ewy esa vfuok;Z :i ls ,oa mldh nks LovfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr;ksa ds lkFk mifLFkr jgsaxs%& (i) tUe frfFk ds lk{; (Proof of date of Birth) gsrq eSfVªd mÙkh.kZrk dk ewy izek.k i=k@vad i=kA (ii) Lukrd dh fMxzh dk vad i=kA (iii) Lukrd dh fMxzh dk izek.k i=kA (iv) fiNM+k oxZ@vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds mEehnokjksa ds fy, Øhehys;j jfgr izek.k i=k ¼efgyk mEehnokjksa ds fy, firk ds uke ,oa irk ls fuxZr Øhehys;j jfgr izek.k i= ykuk vfuok;Z gSA½ (v) fiNM+k oxZ@vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds mEehnokjksa ds fy, Øhehys;j ds vUrxZr ugha gksus lEcUèkh ?kks"k.kk i=kA ¼foxr 1 o"kZ ls iwoZ dk Øhehys;j jfgr izek.k i=k gksus ij½A (vi) vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds mEehnokjksa ds fy, tkfr izek.k i=k ,oa LFkk;h fuokl ¼efgyk mEehnokjksa ds fy, firk ds uke ,oa irk ls fu.kZr tkfr izek.k i=k ,oa fuokl i=k ykuk vfuok;Z gS½A (vii) fnO;kaxrk lEcUèkh izek.k i= dh ewy izfr ¼nks izfr ds vfrfjDr ,d izfr esfMdy cksMZ ds fy,½A (viii) Lora=rk lsukuh ds iksrk@iksrh@ukrh@ufruh ds vkj{k.k dk nkok djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, ftyk inkfèkdkjh ;k muds }kjk euksuhr inkfèkdkjh }kjk fofgr izi=k esa fuxZr izek.k i=kA (ix) igpku i=k ¼QksVks;qDr½A (x) nks ikliksVZ lkbZt ds v|ru QksVksxzkQ (Recent Photograph) lkFk gh bu lHkh ewy izek.k i=ksa ,oa vad i=ksa dh Nk;kizfr nks lsV esa mEehnokjksa }kjk LovfHkizekf.kr dj tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ;ksX;rk lEcUèkh izek.k i=k ogh ekU; gksaxs] ftudk mYys[k mEehnokj us izkjfEHkd ijh{kk gsrq Hkjs x;s vkosnu i= esa fd;k gSA ;ksX;rk ls lEcfUèkr izek.k i=k ds fuxZr gksus dh frfFk] izkjfEHkd ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu izkIr djus dh vafre frfFk ¼15-12-2017½ rd dk gh gksuk vko';d gSA ;fn vki lk{kkRdkj ds fnu mijksDr of.kZr lHkh izek.k i=k ewy esa izLrqr ugha djrs gSa rks blds fy, dksbZ Hkh vfrfjDr le; ugha fn;k tk,xkA ,sls mEehnokjksa dh vgZrk ds lEcUèk esa ;Fkkle; leqfpr fu.kZ; ysus ds fy, vk;ksx Lora=k gksxkA** 5. The same lays down a non-discretionary provision which is uniformly applicable to all candidates. The Clause in itself does not allow any discretion capable of being exercised arbitrarily in individual cases where the candidates may have appeared at the Interview without any of the original testimonials or copies which were required under the said provisions. The one and only non- arbitrary consequence of such lapse is rejection of the candidature. The Clause in itself promotes fairness in the process and safeguards the interest of others who are duly diligent and appeared at the Interview along with all the requisite testimonials. 6. The plea raised by learned Sr. counsel invoking equity and substantial justice cannot be acceded to ignore/overcome the requirements contained in Clause-2 of the Interview Letter, having regard to the fact that it only promotes fairness and provides non-arbitrary and non-discretionary consequence of failure to produce original of testimonials which is of universal application to all the candidates appearing in the interview. No exception thereto can be permitted. 7. In the aforesaid background, no enforceable claim is made for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.