ORDER : 1. Petitioner is the Selection Authority and the Secretary, Karnataka High School Examination Board. Petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 09.03.2020 in Application No. 926/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short ‘Tribunal’) by which the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher (CBZ-Kannada) under GM/Rural in pursuant to additional list dated 12.09.2013 with all the benefits from the date on which candidates appointed, except the salary for the period with notional fixation. 2. The parties to the Writ Petition would be referred to as they rank before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the petitioner herein was the respondent and the respondent herein was the applicant. The respondent by notification dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure-A7) invited applications to fill up the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II which consisted of Arts Teacher (Kannada, English, Telugu and Urdu Medium); Physics Teacher (Kannada, English and Urdu Medium); Biology Teacher (Kannada, English, Tamil and Urdu Medium); Language Teachers (Kannada, English, Hindi, Tamil, Sanskrit and Urdu). The last date for submitting application was 10.05.2012. The method of selection was on the marks obtained in the written examination as well as on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The petitioner being qualified for the post of Secondary School Asst. Teacher (CBZ Kannada) applied for the post claiming reservation under Women, Rural as well as Kannada medium. The applicant was not selected in the main list and when the respondent-selection authority prepared additional list, the petitioner was selected in the additional list and was placed at S. No. 6 in the said additional list. Thereafter, the applicant was asked by the selection authority to produce original documents for verification. Accordingly, it is stated that the applicant produced all the original documents including creamy layer certificate. As the applicant was not issued with order of appointment and candidates below the applicant in the additional select list were issued with order of appointment, the applicant submitted a representation to the Commissioner for Public Instructions. Accordingly, it is stated that the applicant produced all the original documents including creamy layer certificate. As the applicant was not issued with order of appointment and candidates below the applicant in the additional select list were issued with order of appointment, the applicant submitted a representation to the Commissioner for Public Instructions. On consideration of the said representation the applicant was issued with an endorsement dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-A12) wherein it is stated that since the petitioner failed to submit creamy layer certificate obtained within the period prescribed under the notification of recruitment, the candidature of the applicant was rejected. Challenging the said endorsement the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No. 926/2015. The Tribunal on consideration of the applicant’s case, allowed the application, set aside the impugned endorsement dated 01.07.2014 and directed the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II (CBZ Kannada) under GM (Rural) in pursuace to additional list dated 12.09.2013 with all the benefits except the salary, but granted notional fixation. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Board is before this Court. 3. We have heard Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/ respondent and Sri. Ramesh Zirali, learned counsel for respondent/applicant. 4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the applicant had participated in the recruitment process to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II (CBZ Kannada) in pursuant to notification dated 02.04.2012. The applicant had claimed reservation under Women/Rural/KMS. The applicant was required to produce the creamy layer certificate obtained from the competent Tahasildar. 5. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that the applicant produced creamy layer certificate dated 31.10.2006 in Form No. 1 and subsequently along with the representation the applicant had produced creamy layer certificate dated 31.10.2013. According to the learned Government Advocate both these certificates would not confirm to the requirement specified in the notification inviting application, since the notification requires production of document or caste or income certificate obtained on or before the last date for submitting application. 6. According to the learned Government Advocate both these certificates would not confirm to the requirement specified in the notification inviting application, since the notification requires production of document or caste or income certificate obtained on or before the last date for submitting application. 6. The learned Government Advocate taking us through the impugned order of the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that there is no specification or condition regarding the date on which the creamy layer certificate is required to be obtained and production of Rural reservation or creamy layer certificate, which, according to the learned Government Advocate is wholly erroneous and opposed to the notification inviting application. He submits that the recruiting authority shall adhere to the terms and conditions as mentioned in the notification inviting application and it is not permissible for the recruiting authority to deviate from the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification inviting application. It is his submission that clause-16 of the notification inviting application requires the candidates to produce certificate claiming reservation in the prescribed form. It specifically states that the certificates which are time barred would be rejected. Clause 19 requires submission of creamy layer certificate in the prescribed Form. Learned Government Advocate invites attention of this Court to clause 26(2) of the notification inviting application to say that it is specifically instructed to the candidates to obtain all the relevant certificates well before the last date for submitting application and to produce the same before the authority for verification when asked. Thus he submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the notification would not specify the date on which the creamy layer certificate is to be obtained, is not correct. Further he submits that the creamy layer certificate obtained would be valid only for one year and he points out to the certificate produced by the petitioner along with memo dated 20.01.2022 to say that the certificate itself mentions that the certificate is valid for one year. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Ramesh Zirali supporting the order of the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal rightly quashed the endorsement and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Secondary School Asst. Teacher (CBZ Kannada) under GM-Rural category in pursuance to additional list dated 12.09.2013. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Ramesh Zirali supporting the order of the Tribunal submits that the Tribunal rightly quashed the endorsement and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Secondary School Asst. Teacher (CBZ Kannada) under GM-Rural category in pursuance to additional list dated 12.09.2013. He submits that the petitioner was selected under additional list published on 12.09.2013 and the applicant was at S. No. 6 in the said additional list. The applicant had produced all the original records including the creamy layer certificate issued by the Tahasildar dated 31.10.2006. He further submits that subsequently along with the representation, the applicant also made available the creamy layer certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Yallapur on 31.10.2013. It is his submission that when there is no dispute with regard to status of the applicant as Rural candidate, it is permissible to produce the certificate in support of her claim at the time of verification of document or subsequently. 8. It is the contention of the applicant that the notification inviting application would not specify as to the period of validity of a creamy layer certificate and when exactly as to the applicant should obtain the creamy layer certificate so as to produce before the authorities. It is his submission that since applicant had produced creamy layer certificate of the year 2006 as well as issued on 31.10.2013, the Tribunal has rightly directed the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as Secondary School Assistant Teacher. Thus he prays for dismissing the writ petition. 9. It is not in dispute and it is an admitted fact that the applicant was selected to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher (CBZ Kannada) under Additional select List published on 12.09.2013 under the category GM/Rural. The notification inviting application dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure-A7) indicates last date for submitting application as 10.05.2012. The notification also further discloses that the candidate who claims reservation under Category IIA/IIB/IIIA/IIIB and Rural reservation, shall produce the caste and income certificate issued from the competent revenue authority. A candidate who claims Rural reservation, is required to produce creamy layer certificate in Form-1. The relevant clause no. The notification also further discloses that the candidate who claims reservation under Category IIA/IIB/IIIA/IIIB and Rural reservation, shall produce the caste and income certificate issued from the competent revenue authority. A candidate who claims Rural reservation, is required to produce creamy layer certificate in Form-1. The relevant clause no. 19 reads as follows: A reading of the above clause in the notification inviting application makes clear that creamy layer certificate in Form-1 issued by the competent authority shall be produced by a candidate who claims rural reservation along with Form-2 appended to Government Order dated 10.08.2005. Clause 26 - General Instructions in the notification inviting application particularly Clause 26.2 reads as follows: A reading of the above clause makes it clear that a candidate who claims reservation and any other benefit, shall obtain certificates obtained prior to the last date for submission of application and shall produce such certificates at the time of verification by the selecting or appointing authority. It also makes it clear that if a candidate fails to produce such certificate, he would not be entitled for reservation claimed by him. In other words, a candidate is required to obtain certificate in respect of the reservation claimed by him prior to the last date for submitting application and the same shall be produced for verification when the selecting or appointing authority calls for. 10. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 (for short ‘1990 Act’) provides for issuance of caste and income certificate. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short ‘1992 Rules’) provides for procedure for issuance of caste and income certificate as well as validity certificate. Rule 3-C of 1992 Rules reads as follows: 3-C. Validity of the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar: (1) The caste certificate issued under Section 4-A shall be valid until it is cancelled. (2) The Income Certificate issued under Section 4-A shall be valid for a period of five years. The above Rule makes it clear that the caste certificate issued under Section 4A of 1990 Act would be valid until it is cancelled. Whereas income certificate issued under Section 4A of 1990 Act would be valid for a period of five years. (2) The Income Certificate issued under Section 4-A shall be valid for a period of five years. The above Rule makes it clear that the caste certificate issued under Section 4A of 1990 Act would be valid until it is cancelled. Whereas income certificate issued under Section 4A of 1990 Act would be valid for a period of five years. The validity of one year mentioned in the creamy layer certificate produced by the applicant along with memo dated 20.01.2020 has no basis. The Government Advocate was also not in a position to produce any notification or Government Order prescribing one year validity period for the creamy layer certificate. 11. Caste Certificate and Income Certificate issued under 1990 Act are two different and distinct certificates. Both certificates cannot be treated alike. In respect of caste certificate, for example, if a person is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he is so by birth and not by any subsequent event or development. A caste certificate issued by the competent authority is only an affirmation of fact which is in existence, i.e. caste status. But in so far as Income certificate issued by the competent authority is concerned, depends on the income of the parents of a candidate concerned existed as on the date of issuing such certificate. There is a purpose behind prescribing the period of validity of income certificate to five years. The income may increase or decrease, depending on his avocation/profession or employment. Government servants/employees or salaried class would have a steady increase in their income from year to year. For professionals, businessmen and such persons in other avocation income may increase or decrease. 12. In the case on hand, as stated above, the applicant claimed reservation under Women/Rural/KMS. To claim Rural reservation a candidate is required to produce creamy layer certificate Form-1 appended to Government Order bearing No. SiAaSuEe 08 SeNeNi 2001, dated 13.02.2001 as well as Form-2 appended to Govt. Order bearing No. : SiAaSuEe 96 SeNeNi 2005, dated 10.08.2005 to demonstrate that he has studied in rural area. 13. In the instant case, the creamy layer certificate produced by the applicant is placed on record as Annexure-A6. The said certificate is dated 31.10.2006. The said certificate is more than five years prior to the last date for submission of application, i.e. 10.05.2012. 13. In the instant case, the creamy layer certificate produced by the applicant is placed on record as Annexure-A6. The said certificate is dated 31.10.2006. The said certificate is more than five years prior to the last date for submission of application, i.e. 10.05.2012. The said creamy layer certificate has expired in view of the time prescribed under the 1992 Rules which is extracted above. Hence, the selecting authority or appointing authority could not have given any credence to the said creamy layer certificate dated 31.10.2006. The creamy layer certificate dated 31.10.2013 produced along with the representation is a certificate obtained subsequent to preparation of the additional select list i.e. more than one and half year after last date for submission of application and the same cannot be taken note of for selection, since it is not within the last date prescribed under the notification inviting application. The clause 26 - General Instructions requires a candidate to obtain the certificates with regard to reservation and other benefits, prior to the last date for submitting the application and to produce the same for verification when called for. It also makes it clear that failing to produce such certificate, the candidate would not be entitled to reservation. The purpose behind the condition to obtain certificates prior to the last date for submitting application is to determine eligibility as on the last date for submitting application. It is settled position of law that the eligibility in all respects in a recruitment process shall have to be determined as on the last date for submitting application. The other reason for such condition is that income would vary from year to year depending on the avocation carried on by each person. Thus, both the certificates produced by the petitioner cannot be looked into and as such the selecting/appointing authority has rightly rejected those certificates. 14. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded to allow the application relying upon clause-19 of the notification inviting application and the Tribunal failed to notice clause-16 as well as clause-26 of the notification inviting application wherein it is made clear that a candidate is required to obtain certificate regarding reservation and certificate regarding any other benefit prior to the last date for submitting the application. The Tribunal failed to take note of the provisions of 1990 Act as well as 1992 Rules. The Tribunal failed to take note of the provisions of 1990 Act as well as 1992 Rules. The order passed by the Tribunal is wholly erroneous and is the result of failure to notice the general conditions or instructions contained in the notification inviting applications. 15. The applicant before the Tribunal as well as before this Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ram Kumar Guroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754 . Based on the said decision, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application. We have gone through the said decision and we are of the view that the ratio laid down in the said decision would have no application to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court in the said decision was concerned with the OBC Certificate submitted after cut off date for selection. 16. In the instant case we are dealing with the submission of creamy layer certificate subsequent to publication of selection list. As stated above, both caste certificate and creamy layer certificate are two different certificates and both certificates cannot be treated alike. As held by the Apex Court in several decisions, caste of a person is by birth and not by acquisition of any event taking place subsequently. The creamy layer certificate or income certificate would depend on the income of a person from his avocation or profession or employment as on the date of issuing such certificate. Income of a person whether he is a Government Servant, businessman, professional or coolie would definitely vary from time to time. Moreover in Ram Kumar Guroya case supra, the requirement of submitting OBC Certificate before the cut off date was introduced by the Recruiting Authority only while declaring the results and in that circumstance, the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed to accept the caste certificate submitted by the candidates therein subsequent to the cut off date. But, in the instant case, the creamy layer certificate produced by the applicant subsequent to publication of select list is contrary to the general instructions stated at clause 26 of the notification inviting application. 17. In the instant case, the notification inviting application had made it clear that all the certificates including caste and creamy layer certificate shall be obtained prior to the last date for submitting application. 17. In the instant case, the notification inviting application had made it clear that all the certificates including caste and creamy layer certificate shall be obtained prior to the last date for submitting application. Thus, we are of the view that Ram Kumar Guroya case supra, would not assist the applicant in any manner. 18. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the application. We find force in the contentions raised by the respondent-Government in the writ petition. 19. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed, order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench in Application No. 926/2015 is set aside. Consequently, Application No. 926/2015 is dismissed. No costs.