JUDGMENT: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. This Court has heard Deputy Solicitor General, Sri N.Harinath, and Sri A.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Union of India is in appeal before this Court questioning the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.37924 of 2022. By the said order, the learned single Judge disposed of a number of writ petitions pertaining to recruitment in the Agnipath Scheme in the Indian Army. 3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General argued the matter at length. It is his contention that the learned single Judge erred in passing the impugned order. He points out that the procedure was strictly followed by the appellants and that all the candidates who had produced the relevant certificates were permitted to avail the benefits. He argues that there is no discrimination at all and two candidates who had deposited all the requisite certificates including the original NCC certificates were given the benefit, while the others who did not deposit the said certificates were asked to take the written examination. He also points out that provisional Admit Cards were given to the candidates who did not submit the NCC certificates. It is argued on the basis of a tabular statement annexed to the grounds of appeal that provisional certificates were given. It is also argued that the submission of the original certificate is necessary for claiming the bonus marks and for appearing for the Common Entrance Examination (CEE). Lastly, in the alternate, it is also pointed out that recruitment had already commenced for this batch of Agniveers and that in the worst case scenario if this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents are eligible, they can be accommodated in the next batch. This submission is after obtaining instructions and the statements made without prejudice to the primary contention that the writ petitioners are not eligible for any benefit under the scheme until and unless they produce the original NCC certificates within the time stipulated. Hence, the contention of the learned Deputy Solicitor General that the learned single Judge committed an error in passing the order. 4. Hence, the contention of the learned Deputy Solicitor General that the learned single Judge committed an error in passing the order. 4. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and states that the original certificates were to be produced at the time of the rally and they were in fact produced as stipulated; that is the reason why the hall tickets were issued to the candidates to appear in the CEE. He points out that again at the time the CEE, the candidates were asked to produce their originals and thereafter directed to take the examination. This action is the gist of the dispute between the parties. 5. Learned counsel relies upon the tabular statement which is mentioned in the writ petition and he submits that the writ petitioners had secured their final certificates in the period 30.10.2021 to 05.08.2022 which is before the date of the rally itself fixed for each of the candidates. He points out that the rally was held in the periods 15.08.2022 to 26.08.2022 for all the candidates and they had submitted the documents by that date. He, therefore, argues that the contention urged by the Deputy Solicitor General is not correct. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee and others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 in support of his contention. 6. COURT: This Court after considering the submissions made on both the sides notices that the instructions given to the applicants are very clear. To understand this issue better and to come to a conclusion, the following clauses of the notification are highlighted. At the very beginning of the advertisement itself where the details of the recruitment rally are spelt out, it is clearly mentioned as follows: 1. “........Candidates will have to apply online only, on the official web site www.joinindianarmy.nic.in from 01 Jul 2022 to 30 Jul 2022. Admit cards will be issued online after 07 Aug 2022. Candidates are requested to bring their admit card, application & documents mentioned in the admit card at the rally site.....” 7. Thereafter, in clause 10(d) and clause 11 the following is mentioned: 10 (d) Candidates will be allowed to participate in the Rally only if they produce Admit Card. 11. Recruitment Programme. Candidates are requested to bring their admit card, application & documents mentioned in the admit card at the rally site.....” 7. Thereafter, in clause 10(d) and clause 11 the following is mentioned: 10 (d) Candidates will be allowed to participate in the Rally only if they produce Admit Card. 11. Recruitment Programme. Date and time for Screening of documents, Physical Fitness Test, Physical Measurement Test will be mentioned on the Admit Card. 8. In clause 20, the procedure for applying online is given and among the data required is the “NCC details”. 9. Selection procedure is described in clause 22. A physical rally is first conducted to assess the medical fitness and the bodily measurements of the candidate. Thereafter, in clause 22 (e), the following are spelt out as sub clauses (i) to (iii): (e) Common Entrance Examination (CEE). (i) CEE will be conducted for medically fit candidates at nominated venue. Location, date and time of written test will be intimated at rally site and through Admit Card. (ii) Admit Card for the CEE for the Rally Fit candidates will be issued at Rally Site itself. (iii) Admit Card for the CEE for the medical review fit cases will be issued after getting medically fit by concerned specialist/ specialists at designated hospital. 10. In the same heading are the bonus marks for those who qualify in the written examination. In clause (f) under the heading Bonus Marks in CEE, the following is mentioned: (vi) NCC “C” Certificate holder and participated in Republic day parade Exempted From CEE Exempted From CEE Exempted From CEE 11. The documents required to be produced at the time of the rally are spelt out in clause 23. It is mentioned as follows: 23. Documents Required. Candidates must bring the following documents in original on the day of rally as per programme. The documents should be arranged properly in a sequence and contained in a file cover along with two sets of Photostat copy of each duly attested by a Gazetted Officer with his name and seal in English. Candidates are advised to check their certificate and Marks Sheet for mismatch of Name, Date of Birth, Parents Name, School and other particulars in various certificates. All documents/ rubber stamp/seals should be in ENGLISH. The following documents in original must be brought by the candidates: (a) Admit Card. Candidates are advised to check their certificate and Marks Sheet for mismatch of Name, Date of Birth, Parents Name, School and other particulars in various certificates. All documents/ rubber stamp/seals should be in ENGLISH. The following documents in original must be brought by the candidates: (a) Admit Card. Printed with Laser Printer on good quality paper (Do not shrink the size). (b) Photographs. Twenty (20) copies of unattested Passport size…… 12. Clause 23 (l) deals with NCC certificate. It is as follows: (1) NCC Certificate.(i) NCC A/B/C Certificate and Republic Day Parade Certificate should have photographs of the candidate duly attested by issuing authority. Provisional NCC A/B/C pass Certificate will only be accepted if it is authenticated by concerned NCC Group Commanders. No bonus marks are to be allotted unless the certificate (Relationship/ Sports/ NCC) have been verified. All candidates will submit an undertaking to the effect. Provisional certificates are accepted only during the notified rally duration neither earlier nor late. 13. Clause 23(n) also states as follows: (n) Certificate of Bonus Marks. All original certificates / photocopies duly attested pertaining to Bonus marks will be accepted only during the Rally. No certificates to include NCC Certificates, Sports Certificate, Relationship Certificate or any other certificates to claim Bonus Marks / Relaxation would be accepted after termination of the Rally. 14. A reading of the above would make it clear that the notification clearly specifies that the verification of the documents would take place on the day of the rally. Candidates were asked to produce the documents in original. (as per clause 23) including the NCC certificate even for claiming bonus marks. 15. As far as NCC certificates are concerned, the following is discernable: (a) a candidate holding an original NCC A/B/C certificate and a Republic Day Parade certificate have to produce the same in original. It would be accepted in original if the photographs of the candidate are duly attested by the issuing authority. (b) Provisional NCC A/B/C certificate will be accepted if it is authenticated by the concerned NCC Group Commanders. No bonus marks would be allotted to the said candidate unless the certificate has been verified. All candidates have to submit an undertaking to that effect. Provisional certificates if produced will be accepted during the rally duration only neither earlier nor later. 16. No bonus marks would be allotted to the said candidate unless the certificate has been verified. All candidates have to submit an undertaking to that effect. Provisional certificates if produced will be accepted during the rally duration only neither earlier nor later. 16. The Admit Card which is issued to the candidates also states in clause (g) that they should bring the following documents to the rally site (a) NCC Certificate (b) Sports Certificate and (c) Relation Certificate, if any. 17. A perusal of these clauses in seriatim reveals that: (a) a candidate who has a valid NCC “C” certificate and a candidate who participated in the Republic Day Parade is exempted from the CEE itself which means, that a candidate who holds a NCC “C” certificate or who participated in the Republic Day Parade is not required to write the CEE itself. 18. In the case of the writ petitioners, the date of the rally was between 15.08.2022 to 26.08.2022. On this date, as per the conditions of the advertisement, the candidates were under a duty to produce either the original NCC A/B/C certificate and Republic Day Parade Certificate or a provisional NCC certificate. 19. A plain reading of clause 23 of the advertisement makes it clear that if the candidate produces the documents in original including the NCC certificate and he is found to meet the medical parameters and is found medically fit, he will be permitted to appear for the CEE. 20. Clause 22(e) (i) and (ii) make it clear that the CEE will be conducted for medically fit candidates. Location and date and time of the written test will be intimated at rally site and through Admit Card. Admit Card for CEE for rally fit candidates will be issued at rally site itself. Therefore, if a candidate is found to be medically fit at the rally, he will be issued an Admit Card for attending the CEE. 21. If the candidate has to undergo a medical review, he will be issued an Admit Card after getting a medically fit certificate by the concerned specialists at the designated hospital. Therefore, the issuance of the “Admit Card” is based upon the production of documents and the medical fitness. 22. The fact however, remains that as per clause 23, the candidates must produce the documents in original. Therefore, the issuance of the “Admit Card” is based upon the production of documents and the medical fitness. 22. The fact however, remains that as per clause 23, the candidates must produce the documents in original. This clause makes it clear that candidates holding certificates in all respects NCC A/B/C certificates should produce the same at the time of the rally. They can also produce a provisional NCC certificate. Clause 23 is also clear that no bonus marks will be allotted unless the certificate has been verified. The bonus marks in the CEE as per clause 22(f) are for sons of Ex-Serviceman/sports men having sports certificates, NCC “A” certificate and NCC “B” certificate. This is as per clause 22 (f) (i) to (iv). Similarly, certain candidates having the certificates issued by NIELIT would get a bonus of 15 marks for Agniveer clerks, Store Keeper etc. ITI course, skill qualified candidates also get certain bonus. Even in clause 22 in the note appended after sub-clause (f) (viii) in clause 7, it is specified that original certificates are to be carried by all the above candidates at the rally site. 23. Although a lot of emphasis is laid down on the bonus marks etc., it is clear that there are two types of candidates who are totally exempted from the examination itself (NCC “C” certificate and NCC “C” certificate along with Republic Day Parade) for Agniveer (General Duty), Clerks and Store Keeper/Technical. Candidates who want to appear for the exam of Agniveer Clerks/Store Keeper, Technical will get a 15 bonus marks. 24. In this view of the matter, since the condition in the notification itself specifies that at the time of the rally of the candidates who are claiming exemption should produce their documents in original; this Court is of the opinion that once the verification of the originals is completed at the rally site and the CEE Admit Card is issued, production of original NCC “C” certificate is not mandated by the notification. (2) Even if the instructions printed on the Admit Card are taken at a face value and a candidate with a NCC “C” certificate is asked to bring his original certificate, he cannot be denied the “benefit of exemption”. The conditions prescribed in the advertisement are very clear. All the originals should be produced at the time of the rally itself. The conditions prescribed in the advertisement are very clear. All the originals should be produced at the time of the rally itself. If the candidate clears the rally and is found medically fit, he will be issued an Admit Card. Therefore, a subsequent verification of the original NCC A/B/C certificates and Republic Day Parade certificate at the exam centre is not contemplated by the conditions of the advertisement. This would amount to changing the rules of the game after the play has started. 25. If the photographs on the NCC A/B/C certificates and Republic Day Parade certificates are not properly attested by the issuing authority, either the candidate should be rejected there itself or it should be specified on a case to case basis that the candidate should get a properly attested certificate for claiming exemption. 26. In case of provisional certificates also (which have to be submitted only during the rally), if the same is not duly authenticated, it can be rejected then and there. 27. The question of allotting bonus marks will only arise for certain candidates who are mentioned in clause 22 (f) (i) to (iv) (vii) and (viii). NCC “C” certificate candidates and those who participated in the Republic Day Parade are however totally exempted from the CEE. Therefore, their eligibility is to be decided on the strength of the certificates they produce on the date of the rally itself and there are “NO BONUS MARKS” for them. In fact for them it is “NO EXAM” at all. 28. The question of verification and bonus marks would arise for the others. If the understanding of the respondents was that even the original certificates should have to be verified once again before the exam, the same should have been mentioned with great clarity in the advertisement itself and time should have been fixed for the said second verification. Naturally, this time should also end well before the date of the CEE since the candidate holding a NCC “C” certificate or NCC “C” plus Republic Day Certificate are exempted from the CEE itself. 29. In the opinion of this Court, the subsequent stand that is now urged by the respondents in the form of a flow chart and a provisional Admit Card etc., is not borne out by the record. 29. In the opinion of this Court, the subsequent stand that is now urged by the respondents in the form of a flow chart and a provisional Admit Card etc., is not borne out by the record. The original counter filed does not state that a provisional card was given to candidates who do not submit complete documents. It is also clear that there is no scope for a “provisional” admit card in the notification. 30. If the respondent authorities were of the opinion that the candidate did not produce all the originals as required at the time of the rally, but still felt that the candidate should be granted an exemption, in this Court’s opinion they should have informed the candidate that as his certificate needed to be verified, he is being granted a provisional Admit Card and a time for resubmission/verification well before the CEE date must have been fixed. This should be the exception rather than the rule. 31. In the light of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, a person who has a genuine NCC “C” certificate would presume that he would be exempted from the CEE in the Agniveer General Duty and the Agniveer Tradesman category. If he applied for the Agniveer clerks/ store keeper/Technical, he can be of the opinion that he get 15 marks in the examination during evaluation. He is aware that he will have to take the exam but will get 15 bonus marks. In the case on hand, all the writ petitioners have applied for Agniveer General Duty as per the writ petition. Therefore, they are entitled to come to the conclusion that they are exempted from CEE as they were all issued Admit Cards. As stated earlier, if in the opinion of the respondents the documents produced by the candidates were not in original and respondents were of the opinion that they should be given an opportunity; the candidates must have been put on notice that their NCC certificates are to be verified once again and that subject to the verification, they would have to appear the examination because if in the verification it is found that the “C” certificate is not genuine, they have to appear for the exam and cannot claim total exemption. This should have been clearly and categorically stated. This should have been clearly and categorically stated. If the certificates are genuine, their exam scores are of no value at all as they are exempted. 32. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also relies upon bonus marks etc. In the opinion of this Court, candidates holding NCC A/B/C certificates and a Republic Day Parade certificate are totally exempted from the examination itself. Therefore, it is reiterated that the question of bonus marks and allotment after the verification certificate etc., will not arise in their case. Only for the other candidates who are described in clause 22(f), the question of bonus marks would arise after they appear for the examination and their marks are evaluated. 33. This is clear from clause 23 (n) also, whose photo copies duly attested pertaining to bonus marks will be accepted. In the opinion of this Court, duly attested photo copies of certificates pertaining to bonus marks cannot arise for NCC “C” certificate holders, who apply for Agniveer General Duty and Agniveer Tradesman. NCC “C” certificate holders, who participated in the Republic Day Parade, are exempted from all the three categories (Agniveer General, Agniveer Clerks and Store Keeper and Agniveer Tradesman). Therefore, in conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable. The writ petitioners have proved their case. 34. Apart from this, on a question of law also, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. In Dolly Chhanda’s (1 supra) case also, the petitioner did not produce a particular certificate on the date of the counseling. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by relying upon the earlier judgment in Charles K.Skaria v. Dr. C.Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 held as follows: 8. This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew [ (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305]. The controversy here related to admission to a postgraduate course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or subspecialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate's success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or subspecialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate's success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The prospectus provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and other documents should be attached with every application. Three such candidates were given admission who had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma along with their applications. Their admission to postgraduate course was set aside by the High Court on the ground that their applications, wherein they claimed the benefit of diploma, were liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of paras 20 and 24 of the judgment, where this principle was highlighted are being reproduced below: (SCC pp. 762 & 763) “20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. … Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. … Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. 24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanises the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from overemphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the Government and the Selection Committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark lists from universities, why, even bail orders from courts and government orders from public offices.” 35. The writ petitioners are before this Court with a tabulated statement in the writ petition itself stating that they had acquired their provisional NCC certificate on a particular date and a final certificate on a particular day. Except for petitioners 14 and 15, who acquired their certificate on 30.10.2021, all the other state on oath that they had acquired their certificates on 05.08.2022 itself. The rally was held on various dates from 15.08.2022 to 26.08.2022. The medical examination was conducted the day thereafter for each of the candidates. Except for petitioners 14 and 15, who acquired their certificate on 30.10.2021, all the other state on oath that they had acquired their certificates on 05.08.2022 itself. The rally was held on various dates from 15.08.2022 to 26.08.2022. The medical examination was conducted the day thereafter for each of the candidates. By this date, as per the prospectus/notification, the verification of the originals should have been completed. The petitioners have given another column stating that they have submitted their documents also. The tabular statement and its details are not denied in the counter filed. The fact however remains that the writ petitioners state that they have acquired the necessary NCC “C” certificate prior to the date of the medical examination. The dates of the provisional certificates and final certificates are all prior to the date of the rally. This is in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is a simple matter of verification, which was not done. 36. This Court concurs with the judgment of the learned single Judge. This Court holds that there is a deviation from the procedure. If the certificates were not valid or the correct certificates were not produced, the candidate should have been informed in advance. This was not done. 37. Therefore, in line with the judgment of the learned single Judge appellants are directed to conduct a fresh scrutiny of the certificates of the respondents/writ petitioners within two weeks. Since a submission is made that the recruitment process is already completed and training is already commenced but without any clear details, this Court is of the opinion that the candidates, who are found to have a valid certificate in terms of the notification, should be given the exemption from taking the CEE and accommodated in the appropriate batch if necessary by giving them the benefit of the time lost. Since the candidates are not at fault, they should be given benefit of time lost and every consequential benefit of the single Judge’s order also. 38. With the above directions, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.