JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Mr.P.Y.Divyeshvar, learned Standing Counsel waives service of rule for the respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent no.4-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to quash and set aside the communication dated 23.12.2016 (Annexure-A). 3. By the aforesaid communication, the candidature of the petitioner to the post of CT (GD) in the CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman in Assam Rifles-2015 came to be cancelled. The reason assigned for cancelling the candidature was non-deposit of O.B.C Certificate during the documentation or detailed medical examination. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner had applied in response to the advertisement and at the time of filling up of form had also supplied all the necessary documents including the caste Certificate issued for the purpose by the State of Uttar-Pradesh. It is submitted that in the State of Uttar-Pradesh, the petitioner, who belonged to Kumbhar Community was recognized as a caste under O.B.C. 4.1 It is submitted that the petitioner was declared fit in all respects, but on account of an objection with regard to Caste Certificate, the candidature of the petitioner was questioned and was given time to produce the Caste Certificate from the State of Gujarat from which the petitioner was having the Domicile Certificate. 4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, as the caste of "Kumbhar" is recognized O.B.C Caste both in State of Uttar-Pradesh and in State of Gujarat, therefore, the candidature ought not to have been rejected and the very first time when the objection was raised not accepting the O.B.C Certificate from State of Uttar-Pradesh was erroneous. 4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by an interim-order, had reserved one seat under the order dated 16.02.2017, and thereafter, on 24.03.2017 this Court has proceeded to observe on facts that except for failure to produce O.B.C Certificate from the State of Gujarat no other circumstance exist against the petitioner for treating him to be disqualified. Learned advocate has much emphasized on the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.03.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court. Learned advocate has much emphasized on the reasons recorded in the order dated 24.03.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court. 4.4 Learned advocate, thereafter, submitted that the fact that the petitioner belongs to O.B.C Caste cannot be ruled out and now, especially, the State of Gujarat has also issued the Caste Certificate in the format prescribed in the advertisement. He has placed on record such certificate issued by the Government of Gujarat recognizing the caste of the applicant as “Kumbhar” and as an O.B.C. Such copy is also served upon the respondent-authorities. 5. Mr.P.Y.Divyeshvar, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India opposes the petition by stating that the advertisement had clearly prescribed for a format and the petitioner has failed to submit the form of O.B.C Certificate in format. 5.1 Learned advocate has taken this Court through the documents particularly, the certificates, which are produced. It is submitted that initially, at the time of filing of the application, the petitioner had produced the Caste Certificate of State of Uttar-Pradesh, which though was in the format, as prescribed, but did not match with the Domicile Certificate. Thereafter, at the time of verification of the documents, when further opportunity was provided, the petitioner had produced another certificate again from the State of Uttar-Pradesh in a different format, which is at Annexure-G. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner’s candidature could not be considered. 5.2 It is submitted that though the petitioner treated to be fit, he had claimed age relaxation, he had crossed the upper age limit by 2(two) months. However, by getting the relaxation on the ground of being O.B.C Candidate, he had availed the benefit of relaxation of 3(three) more years, and as the petitioner had failed to produce Caste Certificate in proper format proforma, he was treated to be a candidate, who is over aged for general category. 6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record. 6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record. The fact that the petitioner belongs to Kumbhar Community which is one of the O.B.C category cannot be disputed in view of the Caste Certificate issued by the Uttar-Pradesh Government, which is placed at Annexure-K. Similarly, the fact that the petitioner belongs to O.B.C has been further fortified by yet another certificate though not in a proforma at Annexure-G and lastly, the certificate issued by the State Government, wherein also, the caste of the petitioner is recognized as O.B.C. The documents placed on record, which is list of Castes, which are recognized as O.B.C in the State of Gujarat is indicating at Item No.99, where Kumbhar Community is recognized as an O.B.C. Similarly, the list of castes recognized as O.B.C by the under the central list is also placed on record where the caste of Kumbhar (Prajapati) is appearing at Sr.No.84. 7. The advertisement pursuant to which the application was made, the relevant clause for the purpose of process of certification and format of certificate is Clause 4(C), which would read as under:- “4(C): PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION AND FORMAT OF CERTIFICATES: Candidates, who wish to be considered against vacancies reserved/or seek age relaxation must submit requisite certificate from the competent authority. Otherwise, their claim for SC/ST/OBC/ExS status will not be entertained and their candidature/applications will be considered under General (UR) category. The formats of the certificates are annexed. Certificates obtained in any other format will not be accepted. Candidates claiming OBC status may note that the OBC-Certificate should have been obtained within three years before the closing date i.e. 23.02.2015. The Commission has decided to accept OBC certificate, in the prescribed format, issued after the closing date for receipt of application, but issued on or before the date of their document verification, as valid proof of belonging to OBC.” This clause relevant for the purpose of this case does not stipulate that the Caste Certificate and the Domicile Certificate has to be from the same region. 8. 8. Learned advocate for the respondents tried to submit before this Court that it would be necessary to have both the certificates from the same area, as the reservation of the posts advertised was on the basis of the State, and therefore, to recognize the candidate, as a reserved category candidate from the very State, the Domicile Certificate of that State would be a relevant requirement. However, such argument cannot be accepted, as the categoric requirement under Clause (C) does not stipulate the condition of having the Certificate of Caste and the Certificate of Domicile from the same State. In fact, on the issue of Domicile Certificate, the relaxation is given in case where a candidate is residing in a State and has made an application from that State, however, as received a Domicile Certificate from the another State. In that case, such candidature was required to be treated as a candidature of the State from which the Domicile Certificate was issued. Such provision and relaxation can also be treated to be related to be certificate, which are required to be issued for the purpose of caste. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the issue arose when the candidature of the petitioner was not considered bu a communication initially dated 15.06.2016 (Annexure-I), where the reason mentioned against the name of the petitioner was non-accepting his O.B.C Certificate issued by the State of Uttar-Pradesh. In the opinion of the Court, there was no occasion for the respondent-authorities to raise an objection and not accepting the O.B.C Certificate issued by the State of Uttar-Pradesh, where there is no such provision under the advertisement for rejecting such candidature, where the O.B.C Certificate is issued from some other State. 9. The impugned order at Annexure-A specifically mentions that the candidature of the petitioner is rejected, as the candidate is not fulfilling the criteria to deposit O.B.C Certificate during the documentation or detailed medical examination. In the opinion of the Court, upon perusal of the Domicile Certificate issued by the State of Uttar-Pradesh (Annexure-K) which even according to the authorities was the certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of filling up his application. In the opinion of the Court, upon perusal of the Domicile Certificate issued by the State of Uttar-Pradesh (Annexure-K) which even according to the authorities was the certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of filling up his application. If the same is compared to the proforma certificate which is the part of the advertisement (Page No.46), it would clearly established that the certificate produced by the petitioner at Annexure-K is exactly in the proforma, as prescribed as Annexure-VII to the advertisement (Page No.46). 10. In view of aforesaid the reasoning, the Court is of the view that the petitioner being a candidate belonging to O.B.C and having produced sufficient documents in support of his application including the Caste Certificate as per the proforma ought to have treated as a valid candidate for OBC category. 11. The Court may observe that the requirement of the advertisement was of a candidate, who belongs to O.B.C category and that the status of the petitioner as a OBC candidate cannot be disputed in view of the certificates, as discussed in preceding paragraphs. The formality of producing the certificate may be requirement of the advertisement and as the petitioner has fulfilled those formalities well in time, the candidature of the petitioner ought to have been considered. 12. In view of aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. The petitioner be offered the post, which was reserved under the interim-order dated 24.03.2017. It is made clear that the petitioner will be treated to be appointed on the post in all respect on the date of his actual appointment.