ORDER : 1. Aggrieved against his non-selection for the post of TGT(Arts), petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following substantive reliefs: (I) That a writ in the nature of mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or directions, may kindly be issued directing the respondents to award 1 mark to the petitioner for unemployed family, for which he is otherwise legally entitled to, and the respondent No. 1 may be further directed to redraw the merit list for SC(UR) Category and the petitioner may be declared as selected for the appointment to the post of TGT(Arts). (II) That the writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 as TGT(Arts). (III) That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of TGT(Arts) w.e.f. the date other applicants have been appointed. 2. Respondent No. 1 issued advertisement No. 34-2/2018 dated 19.12.2018 (for short, “Advertisement”) for filling up 495 posts of TGT(Arts) besides other posts. 92 posts were reserved for SC(UR) category. 3. The advertisement prescribed essential qualifications for the post of TGT(Arts). The mode of selection was also prescribed. As per Part-I of mode of selection a written objective type screening test of two hours consisting of multiple choice questions having 85 marks was prescribed. Part-II of mode of selection provided for evaluation process involving 15 marks. The break-up of 15 marks was separately provided. For the purpose of the controversy involved in the case, it will be suffice to notice that 1 (one) mark out of 15 marks allocated for evaluation process was to be allotted on production of non-employment certificate to the effect that none of the family members of the applicant was in Government/Semi-Government service. The certificate was required to be issued by the concerned SDO (C)/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar or concerned Panchayat Secretary/ Sahayak and countersigned by concerned Gram Panchayat Pradhan/Up Pradhan. 4. Only those candidates were eligible to participate in evaluation process, who were short-listed after qualifying written objective screening test. 5. Petitioner held essential qualifications for the post of TGT(Arts). Petitioner submitted his Online Recruitment Application (ORA), in response to the advertisement, within stipulated time. Petitioner belonged to SC(UR) category. He qualified the written objective screening test and was called for evaluation on 19.07.2019 vide letter dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). 6. 5. Petitioner held essential qualifications for the post of TGT(Arts). Petitioner submitted his Online Recruitment Application (ORA), in response to the advertisement, within stipulated time. Petitioner belonged to SC(UR) category. He qualified the written objective screening test and was called for evaluation on 19.07.2019 vide letter dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). 6. Petitioner appeared before the evaluation committee on given date i.e. 19.07.2019. In order to claim one mark for member of family of unemployed, petitioner submitted unemployed certificate dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Bharwain, District Una. The certificate so produced by petitioner read as under: “UN-EMPLOYED CERTIFICATE As per report of Pardhan, G.P. BHATER/Patwari Halqua, it is certified that GOVIND SINGH S/o Shri HARI RAM, resident of Village BEHRAN, Sub Tehsil Bharwain, District Una (H.P.) is not employee in any Govt./its agencies, Public Sector undertaking bodies/boards/Corporation etc. Sd/- Naib Tehsildar, Bharwain, Distt. Una, H.P.” 7. Evaluation Committee did not accept the unemployed certificate (Annexure P-5) submitted by the petitioner on the ground that firstly it was not in the prescribed format and, secondly, it was not in accordance with the requirements of advertisement, which required the certificate to ensure that none of the family members of the petitioner was in the service of Government/Semi- Government organization. 8. The final result of selection process for the post of TGT(Arts) was declared on 02.08.2019 and petitioner remained unsuccessful. Petitioner again procured a non- employment certificate dated 13.8.2019 (Annexure P-10) in the requisite format and compliant with the requirements of advertisement. Respondent No. 1 did not accept the said certificate at belated stage. 9. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that he in fact belonged to a family in which none of the member was holding service in Government or Semi-Government Sector. He had duly applied to the competent authority for grant of unemployed certificate and it was not his fault that the certificate dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) was neither in the prescribed format nor contained the necessary information. Contention of the petitioner is that he cannot be penalized for the fault of others. It is further case of the petitioner that unemployed certificate was not part of the essential qualification required for the post of TGT(Arts). Such certificate was required only to claim 1 (one) mark in evaluation process. Contention of the petitioner is that he cannot be penalized for the fault of others. It is further case of the petitioner that unemployed certificate was not part of the essential qualification required for the post of TGT(Arts). Such certificate was required only to claim 1 (one) mark in evaluation process. Petitioner had obtained the unemployed certificate (Annexure P-5) well in time, hence its non-acceptance by respondent No. 1 during evaluation process was wrong, illegal and arbitrary. Non-employment certificate (Annexure P-10) dated 13.8.2019 proved that none of the members of petitioner’s family including the petitioner was in Government/ Semi-Government services. The last selected candidate in SC(UR) category had obtained 47.12 marks, whereas the petitioner was awarded 46.72 marks. Had petitioner been awarded 1 (one) mark, being a candidate from a family having no person employed in Government/ Semi- Government Sector, he would have scored 47.72 marks and would have qualified for selection. 10. In reply, respondent No. 1 has submitted that the information regarding requirements of non-employment certificate was clearly available in the advertisement and also in the call letter for evaluation process issued to petitioner. It is submitted that the unemployed certificate dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the petitioner at the time of evaluation process was rightly rejected as the same was not as per the prescription. Petitioner cannot feign ignorance. He was a candidate for the post of TGT(Arts). The requirement of non-employment certificate, its format, contents and issuing authority etc. were clearly spelled time and again. Petitioner himself remained negligent and remiss in his conduct and cannot be allowed any benefit at belated stage, when entire selection process is complete. It is further submitted that the certificate (Annexure P-10) was evidently issued in favour of petitioner on 13.8.2019 i.e. after declaration of final result, which stood declared on 02.08.2019. In such circumstances, the certificate (Annexure P-10) could not be considered. In this manner, the rejection of petitioner has been justified. 11. Respondent No. 4 has also filed separate reply and has contested the claim of petitioner almost on similar grounds as raised by respondent No. 1. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 13. There is no dispute regarding the fact that petitioner held all minimum necessary qualifications prescribed for the post of TGT(Arts). 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 13. There is no dispute regarding the fact that petitioner held all minimum necessary qualifications prescribed for the post of TGT(Arts). It is also not in dispute that petitioner had applied in time in response to the advertisement and had also uploaded all the documents required at the stage of submission of Online Recruitment Application (ORA). 14. The only dispute in the instant case is with respect to the submission of non-employment certificate. Whereas, petitioner maintains that he submitted the required certificate on 19.7.2019 at the time of evaluation, respondents No. 1 to 4 have contested the claim of petitioner by asserting that the certificate so submitted by petitioner at the time of evaluation did not fulfill the requirements of advertisement as well as call letter dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). 15. To be entitled for 1 (one) mark in the evaluation of 15 marks, the petitioner was to submit non-employment certificate to the effect that none of the family members was in Government/Semi-Government services. It was specifically provided in the opening part of advertisement that the downloaded copy of the online application format alongwith necessary original certificates and self-attested photocopies must be brought at the time of documentation/evaluation for 15 marks. Clause 16 of the advertisement provided for a check-list for verification by candidates before submitting the online recruitment application or documents/certificates. Sub-Clause (vii) of this checklist provided as under: “All other certificates, if any required for determining eligibility and carrying evaluation as mentioned in mode of selection criteria (Part I and II) which-so-ever applicable to the applicants.” 16. Respondent No. 1 has made a specific mention of the fact in its reply that the format for non-employment certificate was available on the website of respondent No. 1. 17. In the circumstances evaluated above, it cannot be said that there was any ambiguity or confusion regarding the nature and format of non-employment certificate to be submitted by the candidates, who intended to claim the benefit of 1 (one) mark on the basis of their claim under said category. 17. In the circumstances evaluated above, it cannot be said that there was any ambiguity or confusion regarding the nature and format of non-employment certificate to be submitted by the candidates, who intended to claim the benefit of 1 (one) mark on the basis of their claim under said category. Undisputably, the certificate termed as “Non-employment Certificate” dated 4.6.2019 (Annexure P-5) submitted by the petitioner at the time of evaluation, was neither in the prescribed format nor fulfilled the condition of certifying that none of the family members of the candidate was in the Government/Semi-Government services. 18. Petitioner had obtained the certificate (Annexure P-5) on 04.06.2019. The call letter was issued to him on 01.07.2019 requiring him to appear for evaluation on 19.7.2019. Clause 11 (iv) of the call letter again reiterated the requirement to submit non-employment certificate to the effect that none of the family members of the petitioner was in Government/Semi-Government. In such circumstances, petitioner was fully aware as to the exact requirement of none-mployment certificate to be furnished by him at the time of evaluation. The contents of certificate (Annexure P-5) on the face of it suggested that they lacked in material particulars and were not compliant with the requirements of advertisement as well as call letter dated 01.07.2019. Despite having sufficient time for rectifying the certificate, petitioner did not choose to avail such opportunity and rather presented the non-compliant certificate at the time of evaluation. 19. Not only that petitioner remained negligent and remiss till the date the evaluation process was conducted, he did not take any steps to rectify the mistake immediately thereafter. Once the certificate (Annexure P-5) submitted by petitioner was not accepted during evaluation process, the petitioner would have been prompt in making efforts to get the mistake rectified. The petitioner could not have waited for indefinite period. Evidently, the declaration of final result by respondent No. 1 on 02.08.2019 made the petitioner wiser and thereafter he procured the certificate (Annexure P-10), which in the considered opinion of this Court, will not serve the cause of petitioner. 20. Thus, it is clear that petitioner had not submitted the non-employment certificate in accordance with the advertisement and also the call letter dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). It is not a case where the petitioner was helpless or had no opportunity to comply with the requirements of advertisement and call letter. 20. Thus, it is clear that petitioner had not submitted the non-employment certificate in accordance with the advertisement and also the call letter dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). It is not a case where the petitioner was helpless or had no opportunity to comply with the requirements of advertisement and call letter. In such circumstances, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be loath to direct respondent No. 1 to consider the certificate (Annexure P-10), procured by the petitioner even after declaration of final result especially when there is nothing to show that respondent No. 1 has power to relax the rules set by it for recruitment. 21. In Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 85 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 22. In State of Bihar and Others vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and Another, JT 2021 (12) SC 262, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 22. In State of Bihar and Others vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan and Another, JT 2021 (12) SC 262, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.” 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish his case by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 , in which it was held in Paras 7 and 9 as under: “7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI category. She comes from a very humble background, her father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal.” 24. No doubt, the certificate of non-employment to be produced by the petitioner was in the nature of proof of holding entitlement to benefit of 1 (one) mark in evaluation process, but the petitioner, in the given facts of the instant case, cannot derive any benefit from the above noticed judgment for the reason that in the said case the petitioner therein had rectified the mistake at the stage of second counselling i.e. before closure of admission process. The petitioner, as noticed above, despite opportunities had failed to rectify the mistake till declaration of final result. 25. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16834/2021, titled Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 10.5.2022. This judgment again will not help the cause of petitioner as in that case, also the petitioner had produced the required certificate with promptitude on the date of evaluation after receiving the call letter. 26. In these circumstances, the relief sought by petitioner cannot be granted. This judgment again will not help the cause of petitioner as in that case, also the petitioner had produced the required certificate with promptitude on the date of evaluation after receiving the call letter. 26. In these circumstances, the relief sought by petitioner cannot be granted. Additionally, it can be seen that the private respondent No. 4 has been appointed on the basis of his own merit. There is no fault as far as selection of private respondent No. 4 is concerned. Vested rights have accrued in favour of private respondent, which cannot be taken away without there being exhibition of palpable illegality or perversity in the selection process. 27. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications if any.