JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.12.2018 made in W.P.(MD) No.24585 of 2018.) Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 20 December 2018 recorded on W.P(MD) No. 24585 of 2018. This appeal is by the respondent – State Public Service Commission. 2.1 Learned advocate for the appellant – State Public Service Commission has submitted that, the relief granted by learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case, was against the policy of the Public Service Commission and it may lead to many such similarly situated persons coming to Court. The grievance of the appellant is reflected in ground (h), which reads as under:- “h) The learned Judge failed to consider that the writ petitioner was not even in possession of the 'Destitute Widow' certificate before the time for uploading the documents was over. The last date for uploading the documents was 23.10.2018, but she obtained the certificate only on 28.11.2018, hence she was not eligible to be considered for the post as on the date of application, last date for receipt of application, written examination and the last date of uploading the documents online.” 2.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court recorded on W.A.No. 2399 of 2021 dated 30 September 2021. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained. 3. On the other hand learned advocate for the contesting respondent / original writ petitioner has submitted that, the writ petitioner had participated in the selection process undertaken by the State Public Service Commission for recruitment on the post of Typist. She belongs to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) Community and from within that caste also, she belongs to the category of Destitute Widow. It is further submitted that she is having responsibility of a differently-abled child and widowed mother-in-law. It is submitted that, on merits, she had qualified to be included in the select list. It is further submitted that, she had asked for the certificate from the State Authorities that she belongs to 'Destitute Widow of Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) Community' on 19 August 2015, which was issued by the State Authorities as late as on 28 November 2018, which was immediately submitted to the State Public Service Commission. It is further submitted that, she had asked for the certificate from the State Authorities that she belongs to 'Destitute Widow of Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) Community' on 19 August 2015, which was issued by the State Authorities as late as on 28 November 2018, which was immediately submitted to the State Public Service Commission. It is submitted that, thus there was no default on the part of the writ petitioner and on the ground of late submission of such Destitute Widow certificate, she could not be denied her appointment. It is submitted that, learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case, has rightly granted relief and therefore no interference be made by this Court. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that, so far as the State is concerned, the State is not in appeal and is not contesting party either. It is made clear by him that, as the record stands, the certificate in question was issued on 28 November 2018 and the same can be issued by the State Authorities only and so far that aspect is concerned, there is no dispute. Why the application of the petitioner was kept pending for years together is not the point at issue and therefore that question is not asked to the State. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:- 5.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) Community. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner further belongs to the category which is treated as Destitute Widow Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar). 5.2 It can not also be disputed that issuing the certificate as belonging to a particular category is the domain of the State and there can not be self-declaration to that effect. 5.3 It is also a matter of record that, the said certificate was asked for by the writ petitioner on 19 August 2015. The advertisement in question was issued by the State Public Service Commission on 14 November 2017. Thus, the demand of the petitioner for such a certificate was much prior to and independent of the recruitment in question. She participated in the recruitment and proved her merit. 5.4 The advertisement / brochure of the appellant inter-alia refers to the following conditions:- “15. Thus, the demand of the petitioner for such a certificate was much prior to and independent of the recruitment in question. She participated in the recruitment and proved her merit. 5.4 The advertisement / brochure of the appellant inter-alia refers to the following conditions:- “15. Upload of Documents No documents need be uploaded while submitting online application for this recruitment. The applicants must upload / submit the documents when called for specifically. If the required certificate is not uploaded and if the certificate uploaded by the applicant is not clear and not readable, the application will be rejected without any further notice.” 5.5 Therefore, the certificate of her belonging to Destitute Widow Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyar) category could be provided by her, only when it is issued by the State Authorities, which she had already asked for way back in the year 2015. 5.6 The only factor coming in the way of the writ petitioner, even after she having proved her merit is that, that certificate ought to have been produced on or before 23 October 2018 however the same was submitted on 28 November 2018. As noted above, said certificate was issued by the State Authorities late and therefore she could not meet with the time limit prescribed by the State Public Service Commission. 5.7 We find that, the above could not be treated as a factor against the petitioner, which would dis-entitle her from getting the public employment. Denying her appointment on this ground would be in strict conflict with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It would also frustrate the mandate of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 6. So far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court recorded on W.A.No.2399 of 2021 dated 30 September 2021 is concerned, we find that, it was the case where the mark-sheet was not submitted in time by the candidate to the recruiting agency. The same is not the case here. Therefore that decision will not be applicable in the facts of this case. Even otherwise, no candidate can be asked to suffer for the action which is beyond his control. 7. In totality, we find that, the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case, is just and proper. Not only we do not intend to interfere in it, we confirm the order under challenge. Even otherwise, no candidate can be asked to suffer for the action which is beyond his control. 7. In totality, we find that, the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case, is just and proper. Not only we do not intend to interfere in it, we confirm the order under challenge. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed. 8. For the above reasons, this appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition would not survive. 9. We note that, the name of the writ petitioner is still not recommended by the appellant - State Public Service Commission to the State Government for further consideration and appointment. The cause put forward for it is, pendency of this appeal. 10. List 'for reporting compliance' on 25.03.2022.