JUDGMENT 1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 02.08.2021 passed by learned Single Bench of this court whereby the writ petition seeking directions upon the respondents to consider his candidature under OBC (NCL) category for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan issued an Advertisement bearing No. 231 dated 30.05.2018 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Nurse Grade-II under the provisions of Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1965. The appellant being eligible for recruitment on the said post, on 02.07.2018, submitted his online application form as OBC, (NCL) candidate. The appellant was called for document verification on 18.07.2019. At that time, the appellant produced OBC (NCL) certificate dated 18.07.2019. The OBC (NCL) certificate was not found to be in conformity with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 30.05.2018. Consequently, the name of the appellant was not included in the final select list of Nurse Grade-II published by the respondents on 28.04.2020. The writ petition filed by the appellant with a prayer to treat him in OBC (NCL) category came to be dismissed by the learned Single Bench on the ground that the appellant did not possess OBC (NCL) certificate in consonance with the terms and conditions of the Advertisement dated 30.05.2018 even at the time of document verification. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rishabh Tayal submitted that the appellant was in possession of OBC (NCL) certificates dated 14.02.2002, 14.06.2010, 04.07.2013 and 18.07.2019. The appellant had applied for renewal of OBC (NCL) certificate on 28.06.2018 but the same was not issued till the date of document verification. The appellant therefore, submitted an affidavit affirming that he belonged to the OBC (NCL) category and he will submit the OBC (NCL) certificate as soon as it is issued by the competent authority. It was further argued that the appellant had obtained higher marks than the cut-off marks in the OBC (NCL) category and number of seats for the post in question were lying vacant. Therefore, respondents should have provided him appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 (Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors.) 4. Therefore, respondents should have provided him appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 (Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors.) 4. Per Contra, Shri Rajat Arora, learned counsel representing the respondents, submitted that the general condition No. 13(i) & (iv) of the advertisement which reads as below, clearly indicates that the certificate of Backward Category/Most Backward Category must have been issued in the previous one year from the last date of furnishing the application form:- ^13- lkekU; funsZ'k %& i) vU; fiNM+k oxZ@vfr fiNM+k oxZ (MBC) dk uohure izek.k i= vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk ls 1 o"kZ iwoZ rd dh vof/k esa jktLFkku jkT; ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izi= esa tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk pkfg,] ftlesa fØehys;j@ukWu&fØehys;j dh izfof"B Li"Vr% vafdr gksuh pkfg,A bu oxksZa ds fØehys;j vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; ugha gSA lkekftd U;k; ,oa vf/kdkfjrk foHkkx ds fn'kk funsZ'k la[;k F11/SC, ST, OBC, SBC/ tk-iz-i@lk-U;k- ,oa vf/k- foHk-@15@54159 fnukad 9@9@15 ds vuqlkj fØehys;j esa ugha gksus laca/kh izek.k i= ,d o"kZ ds fy;s ekU; gksxkA (v) vkosnu i= izLrqr djus ds i'pkr~ dksbZ izek.k i=@nLrkost u rks tksM+k tkosxk vkSj uk gh la'kksf/kr fd;k tkosxkA 5. The appellant filed the certificates dated 14.02.2002, 14.06.2010, 04.07.2013 and 18.07.2019 showing his status as OBC (NCL) candidate. 6. Evidently thus, the appellant was not entitled to be considered in the OBC (NCL) category because the certificates submitted by him did not affirm his status for previous one year with reference to the last date of submission of the online application forms. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, could the respondents consider the appellant to be an OBC (NCL) candidate. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy at hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.S.A.W. No. 279/2020), wherein, it was held as below:- "14. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, could the respondents consider the appellant to be an OBC (NCL) candidate. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy at hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kailash Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.S.A.W. No. 279/2020), wherein, it was held as below:- "14. Indisputably, in the advertisement issued in pursuance whereof the appellant applied for appointment to the post of Nurse Gr.II, it was specifically mentioned that the candidates applying in the category of Other Backward Class/More Backward Class must produce the certificate issued by the competent authority of the State of Rajasthan in the prescribed form, within one year from the last date of submission of the application form and thus, the certificate dated 13.6.13 produced by the appellant for recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 30.5.18 was not valid. Merely because, the appellant had applied in OBC-NCL Category, his candidature could not have been considered in the said category in absence of the required certificate. It is true that the respondents have considered three years old certificate while preparing final merit list but then, such consideration has been made only in cases where the candidates have fulfilled the condition in this regard incorporated in the relevant instructions. It is not the case of the appellant that he had filed an affidavit as prescribed for consideration of the certificate produced. Moreover, even otherwise, the certificate produced by the appellant could not have been considered because it was old beyond three years. Keeping in view the unequivocal condition incorporated in the advertisement, the appellant was knowing fully well that the certificate produced by him for consideration of his candidature in OBC-NCL Category is not valid but he did not make any attempt to obtain the requisite certificate till the publication of the final merit list by the respondents. In the considered opinion of this Court, where the status of a candidate belonging to OBC-NCL Category is decided on the basis of financial/social status, the condition incorporated regarding the certificate to be produced in support thereof being not beyond the period of one year from the last date of submission of the application form, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Obviously, many candidates not having the valid certificate might not have even applied for the recruitment to the post and thus, merely because, the appellant has approached this Court, no relaxation can be extended to him." 8. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 9. In the instant case, the OBC (NCL) certificates dated 14.02.2002, 14.06.2010, 04.07.2013 and 18.07.2019 submitted by the appellant did not satisfy the Economically Backward criteria stipulated in clause 13(i) & (iv) of the Advertisement dated 30.05.2018. The aforesaid condition stipulated in the advertisement is completely just as the financial status (creamy layer/non-creamy layer) changes year to year due to revision of income criteria. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that candidature and eligibility of an incumbent is required to be decided as on the date of advertisement/last date for submission of the applications unless otherwise stipulated. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 956 held that if the Rules and the recruitment notification are silent, the last date for considering the qualification would be the last date for submission of the application forms. This court in case of Vinod Kumar Dhaker v. State of Rajasthan (D.B.S.A.W. No. 509/2022) decided on 06.07.2022 while dealing with such stipulations in recruitment notification held that the primary purpose which these stipulations serve is enabling the selecting body to identify the number of candidates constituting the field of eligibility. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as no condition akin to the condition number 13(i) & (iv) of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 was present in the aforementioned judgment. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not find any merits in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.