JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The process of recruitment in a level playing field is bound to be tested on the touchstone of equality in every case. This is what Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantee to every participating candidate in the selection process. 3. In the present case, the advertisement for filling up the posts of Constable(Female) in the police department U.P. were advertised by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board on 29.12.2015, pursuant to which, the petitioner applied and her application form having been found complete in all respects was scrutinized and included in the process of selection. The petitioner in the application form had identified her candidature as OBC category candidate on the basis of a validly issued certificate in her favour on 4.2.2016. There is specific mention of the category i.e. OBC relating to the petitioner in her application form. The petitioner was included in the selection process as OBC category candidate. The process of selection for the purposes of evaluation of merit comprised of assessment of marks based on her performance in the high school and intermediate besides in the physical efficiency test. In the final evaluation of marks on the basis of parameters prescribed for selection, the petitioner admittedly has scored 417.9 marks. As per the process of selection all the selected candidates on the basis of their final selection based on merit are subjected to document verification and physical standard test. This is an independent process passing which final select list in the respective categories is drawn. The petitioner having qualified on the basis of merit in OBC category was subjected to the documents verification test and physical standard test on 20.7.2017. 4. This Court having regard to paragraph 14 and 15 of the writ petition read in conjunction with paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit passed an order on 12.4.2022. The order passed on 12.4.2022 reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Denial of appointment to the petitioner though selected appears to be grossly discriminatory. The order passed on 12.4.2022 reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Denial of appointment to the petitioner though selected appears to be grossly discriminatory. Let Additional Secretary(Recruitment), Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board appear before this Court along with the relevant record of the case tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. List/put up tomorrow i.e. 13.4.2022 at 10.30 a.m. Learned Standing Counsel undertakes to communicate a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary(Recruitment), Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board during course of the day". 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.4.2022, Sri Sureshwar, Additional Secretary(Recruitment), Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board is present in person along with the relevant record. The photocopies of the relevant record are kept on file. 6. This Court has taken pain to go through the record emperically. 7. Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also elaborated the position ably in the light of the record. 8. The Court would gather that the committee while verifying the documents produced by the petitioner has recorded the details as under : UTTAR PRADESH POLICE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION BOARD Direct Recruitment of Constable and Equivalent Posts-2015 DV Report ROLL NO 00041136 GENDER Female NAME SHALU VERMA FATHER/HUSBAND NAME SHIV KUMAR DOB 20/02/1979 AGE 18 Year(s) 4 Month(s)9 Day(s) DOMICILE OF U.P. Yes GOVT. EMPLOYEE No CATEGORY GENERAL CATEGORY CERTIFICATE No DFF No DOEACC-OE No HOME-GUARD No NCC-B No T ARMY No TWELFTH MARKS % 77.2 TENTH MARKS % 79.5 QUALIFYING MARKS % 210.17 CALCULATED AS PER RULE 15(b) 233.9 REJECT REMARKS QUALIFIED ORIGINAL MODIFIED AND VERIFIED GENDER Female Female NAME SHALU VERMA SHALU VERMA FATHER/HUSBAND NAME SHIV KUMAR SHIV KUMAR D.O.B. 20/02/1997 20/02/1997 AGE 18 Year(s) 4 Month(s) 9 Day(s) 18 Year(s) 4 Month(s) 9 Day(s) DOMICILE OF U.P. Yes Yes GOVT. EMPLOYEE No No CATEGORY OBC GENERAL DFF No No EX-SERVICEMAN No No HOME-GUARD No No DOEACC-OE No No T ARMY No No NCC-B No No TENTH MARKS% 0 79.5 TWELVTH MARKS% 77.2 77.2 CALCULATED AS PER RULE 15(B)% 154.4 233.9 Sd/- Candidate Signature : Shalu Verma Sd/- Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/- Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/- Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/- Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post 9. The physical standard test was conducted on the date of document verification wherein the petitioner's height was recorded less by one inch which was corrected on her protest and this fact is recorded in the physical standard test. Both the physical standard test reports are extracted below:- 1. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION BOARD Direct Recruitment of Constable and Equivalent Posts-2015 PST Report ROLL NO 00041136 GENDER Female NAME SHALU VERMA CATEGORY GENERAL PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST HEIGHT(CM) 151 WEIGHT(KG) 42.3 NORMAL CHEST(CM) NA EXPANDED CHEST(CM) NA CHEST EXPANSION(CM) NA NOT QUALIFIED Sd/- Candidate Signature : Shalu Verma Sd/- Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/- Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/-Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/-Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post FOR MALE FOR FEMALE FOR GENERAL/OBC/SC Categories. Height must be more than 168 cms. Normal Chest must be more than 79 cms FOR GENERAL/OBC/SC Categories Height must be more than 152 cms FOR ST Category Height must be more than 160 cms Normal Chest must be more than 77 cms FOR ST Category Height must be more than 147 cms. Minimum 5 CM expansion is required Weight must be more than 40 kgs(All categories) Weight-NA Chest-NA 2. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION BOARD Direct Recruitment of Constable and Equivalent Posts-2015 PST Report ROLL NO 00041136 GENDER Female NAME SHALU VERMA CATEGORY GENERAL PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST HEIGHT(CM) 152 WEIGHT(KG) 42.4 NORMAL CHEST(CM) NA EXPANDED CHEST(CM) NA CHEST EXPANSION(CM) NA QUALIFIED Sd/- Candidate Signature : Shalu Verma Sd/-Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/-Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/-Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post Sd/-Member-1 DV/PST DAL Seal with Name and Post FOR MALE FOR FEMALE FOR GENERAL/OBC/SC Categories. Height must be more than 168 cms. Normal Chest must be more than 79 cms FOR GENERAL/OBC/SC Categories Height must be more than 152 cms FOR ST Category Height must be more than 160 cms Normal Chest must be more than 77 cms FOR ST Category Height must be more than 147 cms. Minimum 5 CM expansion is required Weight must be more than 40 kgs(All categories) Weight-NA Chest-NA 10. Minimum 5 CM expansion is required Weight must be more than 40 kgs(All categories) Weight-NA Chest-NA 10. Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State while explaining the document verification report has argued that category entry in the chart as 'General' is an implicit consequence of the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce her original category certificate dated 4.2.2016. The report would have treated the petitioner as ‘OBC’ if the original certificate as mentioned in the application form submitted online was produced on the date fixed. The argument put-forth does have force particularly when the petitioner is a signatory to the above report but what is relevant to be noticed is the case pleaded by the petitioner, in response to which, the Court does not find a satisfactory or well supported reply emerging from the original record produced before the Court. 11. In paragraph 14 and 15 of the writ petition, it is a clear case of the petitioner that she had appeared before the committee for documents verification on 20.7.2017. It is also averred by her that the original certificate submitted along with the online application form was produced by her at the time of document verification. It is further submitted that the previous certificate of category issued to the petitioner was also available with her of which the copy on being demanded by the authorities was duly supplied. The original category certificate of the relevant date i.e. 4.2.2016 has been produced before this Court by the petitioner as well. 12. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition being relevant are extracted hereunder : "14. That on 20.07.2016 petitioner duly appeared in the documents verification and physical standard test at Police Lines, Sultanpur along with her original educational document, caste certificate dated 04.02.2016(Annexure No. 4) and Domicile certificate dated 04.02.2016(Annexure No. 5) and other relevant documents. At the time of document verification petitioner duly submitted photocopies of the same document before the authority concerned. Authority concerned duly verified the photocopies from the original document and accepted the same. 15. That it is also very relevant to mention here that at the time of document verification authority concerned required additional another certificate of category and domicile, which have also available with the petitioner, in bona-fide manner petitioner has also produced as additional documents as required by the authority concerned i.e. Category certificate no. 15. That it is also very relevant to mention here that at the time of document verification authority concerned required additional another certificate of category and domicile, which have also available with the petitioner, in bona-fide manner petitioner has also produced as additional documents as required by the authority concerned i.e. Category certificate no. 460631401937 dated 24.8.2014 issued by the competent authority. True copy of the additional Category certificate No. 460631401937 dated 24.8.2014 issued by the competent authority is being filed herewith and marked as annexure no. 7". 13. In paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit, the following stand was adopted by the State in reply to the case set up by the petitioner :- "8. That the scrutiny of documents and physical standard test of petitioner Shalu Verma was taken by a committee presided by the Sub-divisional Magistrate in Police Linces, District Sultanpur on 20.7.2016, in which petitioner had submitted OBC caste certificate no. 460631401937 dated 24.8.2014 which was different from that OBC caste certificate no. 466163000425 dated 04.02.2016 as applied in the online application. After submission of the OBC caste certificate of different dated from the originally applied in online application, which is issued before the fixed period(issued on or after 01.04.2015 but issued till the last date 24.02.2016 fixed for registration of this recruitment process), before the Examination Committee, the Examination Committee rejected the certificate and considered the petitioner as a General Category candidate. Members of the Committee as well as petitioner are also agreed and signed on the report of the Examination Committee which is annexed as Annexure No. 2. Petitioner has obtained total 417.9 marks(79.5+154.40+184=417.9) in accordance with Rules. Cut-off marks of last selected candidate of General category(Women) for the post of Police Constables is 418.77. Petitioner is not selected due to lower marks obtained by her in comparison with that of the last selected candidate of general category for the post of Police Constables". 14. On a close scrutiny of the stand spelt out in the short counter affidavit, it is evident that the reason of non-production of category certificate i.e. OBC dated 4.2.2016 does not find mention in the documents verification report reproduced herein-above meaning thereby that the version set out in paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit has no documentary support from the original record. The entry of details in the DV report unless maintained by the competent committee for cross check cannot be assumed to be a gospel truth. No record to cross check the details in the DV report were maintained by the committee except the signature obtained on the report. Any reason spelt out in the counter affidavit must find support from the original record without which an improbable ground has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. The mere mention of the petitioner's category in the upper part of DV report as 'General' and 'No' in the last column does not reconcile with any reason spelt out by the committee. It is highly improbable that a selected candidate would make no effort to produce the relevant certificate or even if she fails to produce, why would she not seek time for production of an existing document. 15. The question as to whether the petitioner produced the original OBC certificate dated 4.2.2016 or not has to be tested from the original record. There are two aspects relevant for this purpose. Firstly, the authorities must show as to what number of documents were duly received for verification and which documents a candidate failed to produce. In the event of failure, whether a candidate demanded an opportunity or not. 16. This Court fails to understand as to why a candidate who has rightly mentioned the category certificate i.e. OBC of a particular date i.e. 4.2.2016 would firstly submit the irrelevant certificate and secondly may not produce the relevant certificate at the time of documents verification. The petitioner's height was also recorded less by one inch which was corrected on her protest and this fact is recorded in the physical standard test report placed before us. In absence of any plausible justification recorded in the documents verification report except the baseless consequence of failure, the very stand adopted in paragraph 8 of the short counter affidavit is wholly unfounded and unsupported on the basis of any tangible proof. Interestingly the DV report is in two parts. The second part on the top records ‘Qualified’. It is not spelt out in the first part as to what number of documents were checked and which of those were not produced. Interestingly the DV report is in two parts. The second part on the top records ‘Qualified’. It is not spelt out in the first part as to what number of documents were checked and which of those were not produced. There is no clarity of the documents which were checked nor there is any such mention in the fist part of DV report as to what number of documents were verified and which of those were not produced. As to how the modified or verified category was mentioned as ‘General’ instead of OBC, there is no supporting material or a reason available on record. The stand adopted in the short counter affidavit is afterthought, dubious and misleading. 17. This Court would caution the administrative authorities not to swear affidavits on oath adopting a stand untraceable to the original record. This is an unhealthy practice and amounts to an abuse of administrative power. Selection for appointment of a candidate is a valuable right. This right has to be honored without deviating from the principles of equality and equal treatment. 18. In the present case, it is clear that the cut-off marks of general category candidates are shown to be above 418.77 whereas the cut-off marks for OBC stood at 410.6. On the basis of marks obtained by the petitioner while belonging to the OBC category, she has clearly qualified the benchmark and she is thus entitled to be included amongst the selected candidates of OBC category. Once a candidate having 410.6 marks was appointed, as to why a candidate obtaining 417.9 marks may not have a preferential right remains inexplicable by the State. The individual right which had accrued to the petitioner was not open to be frustrated on the strength of any irrelevant document of which the production does not seem to be in the course of prudent behaviour particularly when there is no mention in the original record that the petitioner had failed to produce the original OBC category certificate dated 4.2.2016. The recording of consequence i.e. ‘General’ unless backed by an authentic proof of failure to produce the category certificate, in my humble view, is an arbitrary act falling within the scope of judicial review and the Court would not shut the doors of justice in a case like the one at hand. 19. The record does not support the case of the State which was carefully examined. 19. The record does not support the case of the State which was carefully examined. The Court has extracted the entire details of documents verification and physical standard test reports herein-above. 20. In the result, once the right of appointment having accrued to the petitioner on equal basis was acted upon in respect of the other OBC category selected candidates, there is no reason as to why the petitioner may not be extended the same benefit with the issuance of appointment in her favour. 21. This Court accordingly directs the competent authority to proceed with the benefit of selection including notional seniority as has accrued to the petitioner at par with the other selected candidates having equal merit or less. 22. This exercise shall be carried out not later than a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served to the competent authority along with the representation. 23. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to cost.