JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the category of OBC (NCL) and include his name in the provisional merit list for recruitment to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17/6/2021, the petitioner applied in the category of OBC (NCL) and he was called for document verification. Whereafter, the provisional merit list was published by the respondents, and when the name of the petitioner, despite having marks higher than the cut off, did not appear in the said list and objections were invited by the respondents, the petitioner filed his objection on 8/2/2022 inter alia ventilating his grievance regarding non-inclusion of his name in the list. However, as the respondents have failed to take any action on the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the certificates dated 30/6/2015, 22/3/20219 and 30/9/2021 filed as Annex. 1 made submissions that from the said documents, it is apparent that the petitioner belongs to OBC (NCL) category and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the provisional merit list despite having higher marks than the cut off is not justified. 4. The respondent No. 3 - University - the recruiting agency filed reply inter alia indicating that during the course of document verification, the petitioner only produced certificate dated 30/9/2021, which certificate could not be taken into consideration on account of condition No. 9.2 of the advertisement, which required the candidates to produce the certificates issued before the last date of application, which in the present case was 23/7/2021 and as such, the petitioner was not entitled for consideration of his candidature under OBC (NCL) category. 5. 5. In response to the said reply, the petitioner has filed additional affidavit inter alia indicating that though the petitioner had got prepared an affidavit on 7/2/2022 in terms of the Circular of the State Government dated 9/9/2015, which provides that the certificate regarding OBC (NCL) would be valid for one year, however, with the aid of an affidavit indicating the status, the same would be valid for three years and, therefore, as per the certificate dated 22/3/2019 and the affidavit, the petitioner is eligible to claim benefit of OBC (NCL). It is submitted that though the affidavit could not be produced on 8/2/2022 along with the objection, however, after filing of reply in the petition, attempts were made to file the said affidavit with the University, but the same was not accepted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that in view of the Government Circular dated 9/9/2015 and the affidavit produced with the additional affidavit, and the judgment of this Court in Kailash Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2505/2022 decided on 23/2/2022, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his candidature as OBC (NCL) candidate. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 779 . 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the entire plea sought to be raised is baseless inasmuch as neither the certificate dated 22/3/2019 was produced by the petitioner during the course of document verification and/or with the objection dated 8/2/2022, which aspect is evident from Annex. 10, wherein, the petitioner has produced certain documents. 9. Further submissions have been made that the plea regarding affidavit dated 7/2/2022 as per the requirement of Circular dated 9/9/2015 was got prepared by the petitioner also on its face is baseless, inasmuch the petitioner has not even indicated the existence of such affidavit in his objection dated 8/2/2022 and a look at the same clearly shows that the same has been got prepared by way of an afterthought, as is evident from the fact that the stamp for the purpose of affidavit has been purportedly purchased on 6/12/2021 and affidavit thereon has been prepared on 7/2/2022 for which there is no basis, therefore, on that count the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner though filled his application in the category of OBC (NCL), however, during the course of document verification produced the certificate dated 30/9/2021, which was issued after the cut off date and being contrary to the requirement of clause 9.2 of the advertisement, the same was not considered by the respondents. 12. The petitioner had an opportunity to file objection against the provisional merit list, which was availed by him. In the said objection also the petitioner did not rectify the defect and merely reiterated his candidature. When the said aspect was pointed out in reply by the respondents, the petitioner has indulged in getting prepared a back dated affidavit, which aspect is apparent as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, as the stamp is purportedly purchased on 6/12/2021 and affidavit has been sworn on 7/2/2022 i.e. a day before the petitioner filed his objection. If the petitioner had prepared the affidavit on 7/2/2022 in line with the Government Circular dated 9/9/2015, there was no reason for him not to produce the same on 8/2/2022 along with the objection. There is also no reference of such an affidavit and/or the requirement of the Circular in the objection filed by the petitioner and/or in the writ petition. 13. Further, the certificate dated 22/3/2019 on which the petitioner now seeks to rely with the aid of an affidavit also was apparently not produced by the petitioner before the competent authority along with the objection and as such, in the absence of requisite certificate and the affidavit, the plea sought to be raised based on the Circular dated 9/9/2015 cannot be countenanced. 14. The judgment in the case of Dolly Chhanda (supra) apparently has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the delay in submission of proof may not be fatal, however, non-submission of document itself would always be fatal. 15. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted on any count and as the petitioner has attempted to create a document filed along with the additional affidavit, on that count also the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.