JUDGMENT : (N. Kotiswar Singh, J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1st March, 2022, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar, (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 108/2022, by which the learned Tribunal declined to interfere with the notice dated 3rd of February, 2022 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission' or JKPSC) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, on the ground of non-submission of Domicile Certificate within the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement, but merely directed the respondent authorities to treat the application filed by her before the Tribunal as a representation and dispose of the same. 2. According to the petitioner, her candidature could not have been rejected by the JKPSC on the aforesaid ground in as much as she had submitted the Resident of Backward Area (RBA) certificate along with her application within time and she had also submitted the Domicile Certificate before the Main Examination along with the application form for the Main Examination required to be submitted after clearing the Preliminary Examination. 3. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant for consideration of the petition may be stated as follows: 4. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and had completed her Graduation in Fisheries Science from the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Kashmir. Being a permanent resident of the Jammu and Kashmir and that too of a backward area, she duly obtained the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) which was issued on 07.08.2012 under the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir which clearly shows that she is a permanent resident of the Jammu and Kashmir State. She also possessed the certificate of being a resident of backward area (RBA) which was renewed on 10th April, 2021, before the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement, which would also prove that she is a permanent resident and hence permanently domiciled in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and also belongs to a backward area. 5. The Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission had issued a notification on 26th February, 2021, inviting applications for appearing in the Jammu & Kashmir Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2021 from applicants who are domiciled in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The last date of submission of applications was 12.04.2021. 5. The Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission had issued a notification on 26th February, 2021, inviting applications for appearing in the Jammu & Kashmir Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2021 from applicants who are domiciled in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The last date of submission of applications was 12.04.2021. As per the said notification, 19 (nineteen) posts were reserved to be filled up under the RBA category. According to the petitioner, she duly applied for the said post by submitting necessary documents including the RBA certificate within time which were duly accepted by the authorities. According to the petitioner, the Commission being satisfied with the same allowed her to appear in the Preliminary Examination which was conducted on 24th October, 2021, in which she was declared successful which would have enabled her to appear in the Mains Examination as notified vide notification dated 13th November, 2021. 6. Thereafter, the Commission again invited online applications from the successful candidates vide notification dated 26th November, 2021, to be submitted by 20.12.2021. The last date of submission of application forms for the Main Examination was subsequently extended up to 6th January, 2022. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted her application along with the requisite documents including the Domicile Certificate. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, having been declared successful in the Preliminary Examination and also been allowed to submit the online application form in terms of the notification dated 26th November, 2021, the petitioner was expecting to appear in the Main Examination and was preparing for the same. Unfortunately, by the impugned notice dated 3rd February, 2022, issued by the Commission, the candidature of the petitioner, along with some others mentioned therein, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner submitted the Domicile Certificate after the cut-off date. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection notice, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application, O.A. No. 108/2022, raising her grievances and the said application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 1st March, 2022. 9. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection notice, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application, O.A. No. 108/2022, raising her grievances and the said application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 1st March, 2022. 9. The learned Tribunal did not dispose of the said application on merit but made certain observations which according to the petitioner was prejudicial to her interest to the effect that it was the responsibility of the applicant to attach the requisite documents in proper format before the last date prescribed for the same and it was incumbent upon the applicant to submit Domicile Certificate before the prescribed date which she did not submit, but subsequently in December, 2021, and, as such, the authorities were within their right to reject the application of the petitioner and accordingly, the Tribunal held that no direction could be issued to the respondents. 10. As regards the plea of the petitioner that as she was allowed to appear in the Preliminary Examination and, as such, she should have been allowed to appear in the Main Examination, it was observed by the learned Tribunal that said act cannot confer any right to the applicant inasmuch as it would be compelling the respondents to repeat the same mistake. However, the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to consider case of the applicant by treating her application as a representation and dispose of the same. 11. Relevant portions of the observations and directions of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal as contained in its order dated 01.03.2022 read as under:- "7. Learned counsel for respondents further argued that merely because the applicant was not stopped from appearing in the preliminary examination, it does not mean that she has a right to sit in the main examination also. Proper filling up of the form and attaching its annexure is of paramount importance in applying for any competitive examination. It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to attach the requisite documents in proper format and before the last date prescribed for the same. It is a matter of record that in terms of the notification dated 26.02.2021, it was incumbent upon the applicant to submit Domicile Certificate before the prescribed date i.e. 12.04.2021. Since the applicant has submitted the same much later, in December, 2021, the respondents were well within their right to reject the same. It is a matter of record that in terms of the notification dated 26.02.2021, it was incumbent upon the applicant to submit Domicile Certificate before the prescribed date i.e. 12.04.2021. Since the applicant has submitted the same much later, in December, 2021, the respondents were well within their right to reject the same. As far as the action of the respondents in erroneously not stopping the applicant from sitting for the preliminary examination is concerned, even if it was a mistake on their part, the applicant cannot force the respondents to repeat the same mistake once again. He also stated that the respondents are ready to dispose of the representation of the applicant against the impugned order, even within a short notice. 8. After hearing both the sides and taking an overall view of the facts, we hereby direct the respondents to treat this O.A. as a representation of the applicant and dispose off the same latest by 6th of March, 2022. We are fully aware of the short notice being given to the respondents, but we are constrained because of the limit of 08.03.2022 i.e. the date of the main examination." 12. The petitioner not having received any substantial relief from the CAT, approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 3rd March, 2022, and this Court by an interim order dated 7th March, 2022, while issuing notice was pleased to direct the Commission to issue admit card in favour of the petitioner and to allow her to appear in the J&K Combined Competitive (Main) Examination on her own risk and responsibility. However, it was also directed that participation of the petitioner in the examination shall be subject to further orders of this Court. 13. In terms of the aforesaid interim order of this Court dated 7th March, 2022, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Main Examination and subsequently, this Court by another order dated 29th November, 2022, directed the Commission to produce the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover which was produced and opened by the Court on 5th December, 2022, and on perusal, it was found that the petitioner had qualified the J&K CCE (Main) Examination, 2021. 14. Subsequently, by an order dated 7th December, 2022, this Court allowed the petitioner to appear in the interview provisionally. 14. Subsequently, by an order dated 7th December, 2022, this Court allowed the petitioner to appear in the interview provisionally. This Court, however, directed that her final result shall not be declared until further orders from this Court. The final result of the petitioner has been placed before this Court in a sealed cover which we have perused. From the said result, it is shown that the petitioner has obtained marks above the cut of mark fixed in the RBA category. We, however, are not disclosing the actual marks obtained by her at this stage even if she is found successful in the Main Examination and Interview. The Commission, however, shall consider her merit position amongst the RBA candidates and do the needful in terms of our judgment in this petition and recommend her for appointment if she is found to be meritorious amongst the successful candidates against the posts reserved for the residents of backward area (RBA). The result of the petitioner produced before this Court in a sealed cover is again kept in a sealed cover and will be part of the record to be opened by a judicial order. 15. The stand of the J&K Public Service Commission as contained in their objections filed before this Court is by way of reiterating their stand before the Tribunal by contending that since the preliminary examination conducted after inviting the online applications from the eligible candidates was only for screening and restricting the number of candidates to a manageable level, therefore, the Commission relied on the information submitted by the candidates in the online portal. It was contended that the documents submitted by the candidates were scrutinized at the time of Main Examination and it was prescribed in the initial Notification No. 02-PSC (DR-P) of 2021, dated 26.02.2021 that the candidates must be in possession of domicile certificate before the cut of date for appearing in the J&K Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2021 in accordance with the rules laid down in SRO 103 of 2018, dated 23.02.2018 read with S.O. 21 of 2021, dated 18.01.2021 and S.O. 61 of 2021, dated 23.02.2021 issued by General Administration Department. It was contended that the applicant by her own admission did not possess the domicile certificate on the cut-off date and, as such, she was not eligible for appearing in the main examination. It was contended that the applicant by her own admission did not possess the domicile certificate on the cut-off date and, as such, she was not eligible for appearing in the main examination. The advertisement notification at Para 09 clearly mentions that the candidate must be a domicile of the Union Territory and must possess the Domicile Certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format as on the last date prescribed for submission of the online application form for the Preliminary Examination viz. 12.04.2021. It was further contended that the Domicile Certificate annexed by the applicant/petitioner with the original application admittedly shows that the domicile certificate of the applicant was issued on 07.12.2021 i.e. after about 06 months from the cut-off date, viz., 12.04.2021 and thus, the petitioner was not in possession of the Domicile Certificate as on the cut-off date. It was also stated that the case of the petitioner along with other such candidates was placed before the appellate authority of the Commission which rejected the appeals. However, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Main Examination because of the direction of this Court. It was also contended that the reason given by the petitioner for not having the domicile certificate on the cut-off date that COVID-19 hampered the issuance of her domicile certificate, is completely unfounded since more than twenty thousand candidates who had appeared in the said Preliminary Examination were in possession of the same. 16. Thus, from the averments and the submissions advanced, the core issue to be decided by this Court is whether the candidature of the petitioner could have been rejected on the ground that she had submitted the Domicile Certificate after the cut-off date of 12.04.2021 as per initial notification dated 26.02.2021, and whether submission of the said Domicile Certificate subsequently but before the Main Examination would be permissible and will not hit her candidature? 17. In order to understand the issue in proper perspective, we must start with the initial notification issued on 26.02.2021, the relevant portions of which are reproduced hereunder:- - The Application Form together with instructions for filling up the Application Forms will be available at the website of the Commission from 11.03.2021. - Candidates are advised to go through the instructions and all the eligibility conditions prescribed for the post before filling the online Application Form. - Candidates are advised to go through the instructions and all the eligibility conditions prescribed for the post before filling the online Application Form. - Last date for filing of online Application complete in all respects along with the requisite fee (online mode only) is 12.04.2021. - The last date for receipt of online applications provided in the notification shall be the cut-off date for determining the eligibility as regards acquisition of Domicile Certificates and educational and professional qualifications. - The minimum and maximum age will however be reckoned with reference to 1st January, 2021. - Candidates can edit some of the fields in their online application form from 14.04.2021 (12:00 a.m.) to 16.04.2021 (11:59 p.m.) (3 days). Instructions in this regard will be made available on the website. - Candidates are not required to submit a hard copy or any other documents to the Commission. - Candidates are advised in their own interest to submit online applications much before the closing date and not to wait till the last date to avoid the possibility of disconnection/inability to pay fee or failure to login to the online application portal on account of heavy load on the website during the closing days. - The tentative date of Preliminary Examination (in two sessions) is 11.07.2021 (SUNDAY). - The tentative date for commencement of the Main Examination: 04.10.2021." 18. Further, Para 8 of the said Notification reads as follows:- 'Mandatory Documents to be uploaded i) The candidate must upload the below mentioned requisite documents after successful submission of the online application form for J&K Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2021:- a) Domicile Certificate b) Date of Birth Certificate c) Bachelor's Degree Certificate/Final Year Consolidated Marks Sheet d) Character Certificate e) Category Certificate, if any f) Physically Handicapped Certificate, if any g) Inservice Certificate, if any Note: Character certificate shall mean a certificate issued by the Head of the Education Institute or by the University last attended by the candidate or by any gazetted officer of the State. In case of a candidate already in Government Service, the Character certificate shall mean a certificate issued by his Controlling Officer. ii) In case the mandatory documents as prescribed above are not uploaded with the Online application form, the candidature of the applicant is liable to be cancelled.' 19. In case of a candidate already in Government Service, the Character certificate shall mean a certificate issued by his Controlling Officer. ii) In case the mandatory documents as prescribed above are not uploaded with the Online application form, the candidature of the applicant is liable to be cancelled.' 19. From the above, it is very clear that every candidate must submit the relevant documents/certificates by 12.04.2021 to be eligible to take part in the recruitment process. As per the advertisement, every candidate has to submit the domicile certificate by 12.04.2021, which was one of the documents required to be submitted. It was due to non-submission of the Domicile Certificate by 12.04.2021 that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 20. As to whether the candidature of a candidate can be rejected on the ground that a relevant certificate or document was not submitted within the cut-off date, has been the subject matter of consideration before this Court as well as other Courts and also the Supreme Court. 21. We would like to refer to a few decisions of this Court, other High Courts and Supreme Court, which were cited before us in which it has been held that under certain circumstances, the candidature cannot rejected merely because of delayed submission of relevant certificate or document. 'J&K Public Service Commission v. Rimpi Ohri' (MANU/JK/0250/2001) In this case the writ petitioner applied for combined services competitive examination under the reserved LAC category, and she submitted the LAC certificate, validity of which had expired before the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement, because of which she was not allowed to appear in the main examination and interview, and she was treated as a candidate under the general category. A Division Bench of this Court held that, since the fact of the petitioner being resident of line of actual control was not disputed at the time of submitting the application or thereafter, non-renewal of certificate through inadvertence would not disentitle to claim as a resident of the area for which the certificate was originally issued. This Court also observed that the object sought to be achieved by providing reservation for LAC is to confer certain benefit to the residents of Line of Actual Control by virtue of being a resident of that area. This Court also observed that the object sought to be achieved by providing reservation for LAC is to confer certain benefit to the residents of Line of Actual Control by virtue of being a resident of that area. Certificates are required to be renewed on regular basis merely to ensure that a person who after obtaining a resident certificate migrates to other place of non Line of Actual Control does not enjoy the benefit, which is meant for the residents of the Line of Actual Control. Since the Court held that the petitioner was actually a resident of Actual Line of Control, non-renewal of the resident certificate should not act to the prejudice of the petitioner and non renewal of certificate does not change the status of the petitioner if she is actually residing in the area for which the certificate was originally issued by observing as follows:- "22. The rule read as it is, is adequately elastic. The rule is intended to take care of a situation where a resident after obtaining resident certificate migrated to other place and claim benefit of the resident of that area even after the validity of the certificate issued has been expired. In our view, even after the expiry of the validity period of two years as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 34, if he or she continues to reside in the area, non- renewal of the certificate as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of the rules would not disentitle him or her provided it is established that he or she is still a resident of the area for which a certificate has been issued. Non-renewal of such certificate would not disentitle him or her of the reservation benefit for considering his/her case under the reserve category of resident of Line of Actual Control. We have taken this view because certificate is issued on the basis that a particular person is resident of particular area which has been reserved as reserved category. Non-renewal of certificate does not change the status of the applicant if he or she is actually residing in the area for which the certificate has been issued, originally. 23. In the instant case the factum of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner being resident of Line of Actual Control is not disputed either at the time of submitting the application or even today. 23. In the instant case the factum of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner being resident of Line of Actual Control is not disputed either at the time of submitting the application or even today. In fact, the respondent was a resident of Line of Actual Control at the time of submission of the application and continues to be the resident of that area has been fortified by a subsequent certificate issued by the Authority dated 24.10.2001, which has been produced by the counsel for the respondent and not disputed by the appellant's counsel. ....................................... ....................................... 26. Ordinarily a person claiming benefit under a certificate of Line of Actual Control would renew such certificate as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 34, however, non-renewal of certificate through inadvertent would not disentitle such persons who are otherwise resident of the same area for which a certificate has been issued originally. This, in our view, would be harmonious construction of Rule 34, so as to advance the cause of the rules. Conversely, if the actual resident of the area is denied the benefit of SRO 126 for non-renewal of the resident certificate, though factually residing in the area, would produce perilous result and in such event it would defeat the object and the purpose of the rule. Even otherwise looking at the Form 'X' on which a certificate is issued, there is no period prescribed in the form. In such an event, a resident of Line of Actual Control, most of them being unexposed to the outside, is not expected to know that there is a rule which prescribes that the certificate issued under Form 'X' is valid for a period of two years only and is liable to be renewed after the expiry of two years period, especially when such condition is not stipulated in Form 'X'. " 2. " 2. Assad Ullah Khan v. State of J&K, ((2001) 1 J&K Law Reporter 137) In this case, the Division Bench of this Court held that there can be no dispute with the proposition that a candidate must possess the requisite qualification on the cut-off date as indicated in the advertisement inviting applications, however, a distinction has to be drawn between the qualifications which are required to be possessed by an applicant by effort and other qualifications which are inherited by a person or which become available to a person on account of his being a resident of a particular area. When a qualification is acquired by effort such as educational qualification, then the same would be deemed to be possessed on the date it is acquired. The other qualifications such as member of being a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category or resident of a backward area is something which is already possessed but is required to be demonstrated by producing the relevant documents. It was thus held that, "...There are some qualifications which are acquired by effort; there are other qualifications which are conferred upon a person on account of the situation in which he is placed. A person who claims to be member of Scheduled Caste category is a Scheduled Caste by birth and not on account of certificate having been issued in his favour. There is a distinction between a qualification which is acquired on a later stage and the qualification which comes to vest on a person by operation of law. The certificate is issued only in proof of having been a member of a particular category. Similar is the position vis-a-vis a member who belongs to a backward area. In the case of education qualification, the position would be however, different. The educational qualifications are to be acquired by effort and the Date such eligibility is relevant. A distinction has to be made qua a qualification which is acquired i.e. by a positive effort and a qualification which stands vested by operation of law or by circumstances beyond the human effort such as birth in a family or at a particular place... " 3. Surjeet Singh Bali v. State of J&K & Ors., : (MANU/JK/0045/2007) In this case, the Respondents 6 and 7 submitted their RBA certificates after the cut-off date but before the examination was held. " 3. Surjeet Singh Bali v. State of J&K & Ors., : (MANU/JK/0045/2007) In this case, the Respondents 6 and 7 submitted their RBA certificates after the cut-off date but before the examination was held. Hence, it was contended that they were not eligible for appointment to the Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service and their candidature was liable to be rejected by the J&K Service Commission. The Division Bench of this Court rejected the contention of the appellant and allowed the appointment of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for reasons assigned in the following paragraphs of the judgment. "10. It is not disputed that the private respondents whose selection is under challenge were not having the academic qualification but what is disputed is that they were not in possession of RBA certificates before the cut of date. On a plain reading of Rule of the Recruitment Rules referred to above, it is crystal clear that private respondents 6 and 7 were eligible to appear in the examination. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15. The RBA category certificate relates to the status of a candidate and not to the academic qualification. If a candidate takes a ground that he belongs to RBA category, he has to produce the said certificate in terms of SRO 126/94. 16. It is not the case of the parties before the court that private respondents 6 and 7 have obtained/got the said status after the examination or after the cut of date. This is also not the case that RBA certificates produced by the private respondents aforementioned are fake or they do not belong to RBA category. 17. The RBA status is conferred by residence/domicile. The private respondents were having this status even at the time of submission of application forms but were not in possession of the certificates concerned, which came to be issued in their favour after filing of the application forms and before the examination came to be held. They have mentioned in the application forms that they belong to RBA category. While making this observation, we are supported by what was said by this Court in the case reported as 2002 SLJ 234 , J&K Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Ms. RimpiOhri & Anr. 4. They have mentioned in the application forms that they belong to RBA category. While making this observation, we are supported by what was said by this Court in the case reported as 2002 SLJ 234 , J&K Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Ms. RimpiOhri & Anr. 4. Dilshada v. State & Ors., : MANU/JK/0144/2008: In this case Petitioner alleged that the Respondent No. 5 was ineligible as at the time of submission of application for the post of Education Volunteer as she did not submit the requisite certificate of PRC and she got the certificate on 28th July, 2005, after the last date of submission on 10th of April, 2005. A Single Bench of this Court did not interfere with the selection as it was of the view, as held in Surjeet Singh Bali (supra), that whether a candidate is a resident of Jammu & Kashmir or belongs to any backward area is a question of status and if the requisite certificate relating to status is obtained after cut of date though applied earlier, it cannot be held that he/she is ineligible. 5. Tasneem Kounsar & Ors., v. State & Ors., ( 2010 (4) JKJ 107 [HC]): In this case, the Appellants failed to produce the requisite certificates regarding the place of residence while applying for posts reserved for residents of LAC and, accordingly, their selection against posts reserved for LAC was challenged. The learned Single Judge of this Court set aside their selection and appointment. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and restored their appointments relying on an early decision of this Court in 'Assad Ullah Khan (supra). It was held that, "8. The situation in the present case is similar. There was failure to produce the requisite certificate regarding place of residence. This aspect of the matter could have been examined. By way of illustration, if a candidate seeks benefit of appointment as a handicapped, then the fact that he was so handicapped can be seen even at the time of interview. The certificate in this regard may not be essential. Therefore, to say that the appellants lacked the qualification regarding possession of the requisite certificate of being the residents of Actual Line of Control on the date when they were supposed to possess, is an argument which cannot be accepted. The certificate in this regard may not be essential. Therefore, to say that the appellants lacked the qualification regarding possession of the requisite certificate of being the residents of Actual Line of Control on the date when they were supposed to possess, is an argument which cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, the certificates were produced and are placed at page No. 14, 15 and 16 of the paper book. Therefore, to say that the appellants did not possess the certificates, is an argument, which as indicated above, cannot be accepted." 6. Neelam Kiranjeet Kour v. State & Ors., (05.06.2010-JKHC) : (MANU/JK/0162/ 2010) The issue raised in the said petition was also as to whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category can be said to be ineligible merely because he/she failed to produce the reserved category certificate within time. A Single Bench of this Court negatived the said contention by taking a similar view as in Surjeet Singh Bali (supra) and held that, "7. The eligibility is not the category certificate. The eligibility is academic qualification. A candidate having the requisite qualification as on cut-off date is eligible. A candidate who fails to produce the category certificate within time cannot be said to be ineligible. 8. RBA status is conferred by residence/domicile. A person who resides in a village, declared to be a backward area, cannot be denied the said status or benefit for the simple reason that he/she has failed to produce the certificate within time due to the fault of competent authority. The said certificate is not the academic qualification and can be produced later on." 7. Raghu Singh Jandla v. State of J&K : MANU/JK/0154/2014 A similar view was taken in this case also by a learned Single Judge with the following observations: "2. The question which would emerge for consideration is as to whether non-submission of RBA category along with application form or production of RBA category certificate later in point of time would disentitle the petitioner from being considered under category RBA. It is settled principle that if a candidate acquires qualification subsequent to the cut of date of receipt of application, same has not to be considered. Here it is not a question of acquiring qualification, it is a question of acquiring status of residence. It is settled principle that if a candidate acquires qualification subsequent to the cut of date of receipt of application, same has not to be considered. Here it is not a question of acquiring qualification, it is a question of acquiring status of residence. When a particular village is declared as backward area, the persons living there are automatically conferred with the status of being residents of backward area. On satisfaction of norms, prescribed authority issues the requisite certificate. If such certificate is produced later in point of time for the reasons beyond control, same will not deprive the person from claiming benefits of the category. This position is also controlled by one exception, i.e., in case village is declared as backward area after the cut of date of receipt of application, in that eventuality, candidate belonging to said area cannot be considered under that category because it is a status conferred later in point of time. ......................... ......................... 11. Status of petitioner being resident of backward area even prior to issuance of Advertisement Notice has not undergone any change. He having applied under category RBA and having produced RBA certificate though later in point of time for the reasons beyond his control was required to be placed in the selection list under category RBA at an appropriate place as having secured more points than the last selected candidate under said category." 8. Competent Authority Entrance Examinations J&K Jammu & Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Raina & Ors., : (MANU/JK/0018/2016) In the aforesaid case, a reference was made by a Division Bench to the Full Bench of this Court for determination of the issue relating to the candidature when requisite certificate was not submitted in time with the following observation. "We are prima facie in agreement with the learned Single Judge that a candidate, who has acted diligently and done all that was necessary could not be denied consideration under the reserved category to which he/she admittedly belong. "We are prima facie in agreement with the learned Single Judge that a candidate, who has acted diligently and done all that was necessary could not be denied consideration under the reserved category to which he/she admittedly belong. We accordingly feel that besides the questions formulated by the appellants in the Memo of Appeal, one of the questions that would additionally arise would be whether the writ petitioner could be disentitled for consideration under the reserved category in view of the admitted fact that the Authority competent to issue the certificate had failed in its obligation to decide the matter within fifteen days and also in view of the fact that the candidate had done all that was necessary and possible in the circumstances of the case..........". The Full Bench, accordingly, answered the reference as follows: “16. Thus the reference made before this fill Bench is answered in the following manner:- "A candidate must possess the eligibility on the cut-off date and if claims that he/she belongs to a particular category in the application form and unable to produce the proof/certificate before the cut-off date in spite of his/her best efforts, the said candidate shall be permitted to produce the proof before finalization of the selection for admission/appointment as producing proof is procedural and if no claim is made in the application the candidate cannot be permitted to produce proof of the same and such candidate shall be considered in open merit category." While answering the reference, the Full Bench referred to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. a) Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE & Ors., of AIR 2004 SC 5043 , MANU/SC/0861/2004 In this case, the appellant applying for admission to MBBS course in reserved category for ex-servicemen submitted a certificate which was found to be wrong during the first counselling and submitted the rectified one during the second counselling. The respondents refused admission on the ground that the valid certificate was not submitted in time. In the said decision, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e., in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature". (b) Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., ( AIR 2016 SC 1098 : MANU/SC/0222/2016) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether a candidate who appears in an examination under OBC category and submits the OBC certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement notice, is eligible for selection to the post under OBC category or not. In the said case arising out of a decision of the Delhi High Court, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court had reversed the order of the Writ Court in giving direction to consider the writ petitioner for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi as the OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority was not enclosed along with the application form or submitted before the last date of submission of application form. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the order of the Writ Court by holding that a candidate is entitled to submit a certificate even after the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement if the claim was made in the application form. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the order of the Writ Court by holding that a candidate is entitled to submit a certificate even after the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement if the claim was made in the application form. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rules of procedure should be interpreted in a manner, bearing in mind the law laid down by Constitution Benches of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney etc. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 477 and Mrs. Valsammapaul etc. v. Cochin University & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1011 . 22. We may also refer to a few decisions of other High Courts cited before us. Delhi High Court 1. Pushpa v. Government, NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2009 SCC OnLine Del 281) The petitioner who belonged to OBC applied for appointment to the post of staff nurse in the category of OBC. Last date for submission of the application fixed in the advertisement was 21.01.2008. She was treated as a General candidate as she did not submit the OBC certificate before the cut-off date, but later, she claimed that though she applied for the OBC certificate in time, it was belatedly issued and she should not be made to suffer for no fault of her. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court observed that in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'OBC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'OBC' category. If a person is 'OBC', she is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that she belongs to 'OBC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for her belonging to 'OBC' category. It is not that petitioner did not belong to 'OBC' category prior to 21st January, 2008 or that acquired the status of being 'OBC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. It is not that petitioner did not belong to 'OBC' category prior to 21st January, 2008 or that acquired the status of being 'OBC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, it was held that insisting upon a certificate dated prior to 21st January, 2008 would be clearly arbitrary and has no rationale objective to be achieved. It referred to the case of Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2005) 120 DLT 117 wherein the Delhi High Court took the view that the candidates who belong to 'SC' and 'ST' categories but could not file certificate in proof of the same could not have been rejected simply on account of the late submission of the certificates and submission of such certificates cannot be made a pre-condition for accepting the application forms. It was also observed in Tej Pal Singh that in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is a SC, he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to 'SC' category. 2. Latika v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., 2017 SC OnLine Del 10770 In this case, the petitioner was denied selection to the post of Constable (General Duty) on account of late submission of Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate. The Division Bench allowed the petition and directed to consider her appointment, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 in which it was held as under:- "14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281]. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281]. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 Supp SCC (L&S) 1: (1992) 22 ATC 385 ] as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772: (1996) 33 ATC 713 ]. The learned Single Judge in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092: ILR (2000) 1 Del 298], wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate." Jharkhand High Court Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (12.10.2018-JHRHC) : The writ petitioners sought acceptance of their caste and residential certificates, which the authorities did not accept, on the ground of having been submitted beyond the stipulated time and also sought declaration of their results in the selection process undertaken by the appellant for the said posts. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra)allowed the petition and went on to observe that the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) lays down in clear terms that it is permissible to condone the delay and this view has been followed in a series of authorities originating from different High Courts. Madhya Pradesh High Court Amit Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh Writ Petition No. 3997/2018 decided on 21 April, 2022 The petitioner took part in the M.P. Professional Examination Board for Police Recruitment Test-2017 for recruitment of Subedar and Sub Inspector cadre and had cleared the written examination in the first round, but when he appeared in the second round, his candidature was rejected on the ground that at the time of filling of the application he was not having the requisite domicile certificate as he submitted domicile certificate beyond the cut-off date. The Ld. Single Judge allowed the petition on the ground that once the petitioner is a domicile of State of M.P. even though the domicile certificate was submitted later on, the same cannot be ignored. Supreme Court 1. Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1265. Reference was made to this decision in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mahesh & Kumar Raina (supra) as discussed above. In this case, a three Judges Bench which made the observation that though the candidates are supposed to submit all the relevant documents/certificates before the cut-off date, there can be relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure and every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. Thus, it was held that late submission of documents as proof of certain qualifications already possessed, which amounts to procedural irregularity should not lead to nullification of the candidature. 2. Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 1098 : MANU/SC/0222/2016 Reference to this decision was made in Mahesh Kumar Raina (supra) by this Court and by the Jharkhand High Court in Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (supra) as already discussed above. In this case also, it was held that non timely submission of supporting document of qualification already possessed amounts to procedural lapse and the candidate should not be penalised with rejection of the candidature. 3. In this case also, it was held that non timely submission of supporting document of qualification already possessed amounts to procedural lapse and the candidate should not be penalised with rejection of the candidature. 3. Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1262 In Alok Kumar (supra), the dispute pertains to non-production of the caste certificates/domicile certificates within time. It was the case of the candidates that they had forwarded certain information, which was found to be insufficient, and they were required to produce fresh certificate/original certificates, etc. and they were permitted to participate in the process on the basis that they belong to a particular reserved category, but subsequently their candidature was rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not the case that they acquired the qualification after the cut-off date. It is a case where they belong to a particular category and that certificates were produced belatedly, and their candidature had already been scrutinised on the basis of the particulars already furnished by the candidate that he/she belonged to a particular category. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that if they could produce the original certificates, as required by the Selection Board regarding their caste or domicile within three weeks before the Recruitment Board, they would be entitled to participate in the selection process. 23. We would also refer to some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court cited in support of the plea of the Public Service Commission that as the petitioner was negligent and did not submit the domicile certificate before the cut off date, there was no illegality in not allowing her to appear in the Main Examination, though she had been allowed to appear in the Main Examination which was because of the interim order passed by this Court. 1. Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 at page 21 '6. .......................The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. .......................The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] ........................ As far as Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) is concerned, it may be noted that this decision speaks of the general proposition of law that eligibility of the candidates shall have to be adjudged with reference to the last date of application and a candidate who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered. This decision does not directly consider the issue raised in this petition as regards qualification or attribute which a candidate was already possessing as on the last date. 2. Bharti Koshal Bhat (Dr.) v. State of J&K & Ors., 2006 (2) JKJ 675 [HC]; 2006 SLJ 761; 2006 JKLR 303 The petitioner had applied for the post of Medical Officer Ayurveda in Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education Department in response to an advertisement wherein the last date for receipt of the applications was fixed on 07.02.2000. The petitioner did not attach along with the application form the R.B.A category certificate. The petitioner did not attach along with the application form the R.B.A category certificate. Though she submitted the certificate later, she was interviewed and was considered in the open category and not in RBA category under which she had applied. But her name did not appear in either the General category or Reserved category. A Single Bench of this Court relying on Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (2005) 12 SCC 498 : MANU/SC/2713/2005 rejected her claim by holding that, "17. In the present case, the petitioner had not filed the category certificate before the cut off date which means that she had not validly claimed reservation which could be by filing the category certificate. Production of certificate at the later stage could not make her entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, on the said date she could not be considered eligible to apply under the said category especially when the advertisement notice also specifically stipulated that the last date for receipt of applications shall for all purposes be cut off date for determining the eligibility. The Commission was therefore, justified in not considering the petitioner under RBA category." In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was interviewed and considered in the open category and not in RBA category as she did not submit the certificate before the last date. But in the present case, the Commission allowed the petitioner to appear as a reserved candidate for the RBA category. 3. Bashir Ahmad Magray v. State of J&K & Ors. : MANU/JK/0309/2004 The Petitioner was declared ineligible to be considered under RBA category on the ground that he was not holding a valid RBA certificate. A Single Bench of this Court relying on the decision of the State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt reported in AIR 1998 SC 91 rejected his plea by holding that a candidate must possess the valid certificate as required by the employer on the last date prescribed for submission of application forms and if the candidate does not possess such a certificate, the selection authorities are within their right to reject the candidature. It may be noted that in Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the candidate did not possess the required practical/technical qualification when he was called for interview and hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared his appointment illegal. 4. It may be noted that in Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the candidate did not possess the required practical/technical qualification when he was called for interview and hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared his appointment illegal. 4. J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 498 : MANU/SC/2713/2005 In this case, this Court relied on the decision of Ashok Kumar (supra) of which we have already discussed dealing with the general proposition of law of the requirement of candidate to possess the essential qualification as on the last date of submission of applications. "7. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first Respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail the reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. As evident from the above, the candidate passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent main examination he sought the benefit of reservation, which the Supreme Court found unacceptable. 5. J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examinations & Ors. v. Sovia Anand & Ors. : MANU/JK/0020/2016 In this case, a Division Bench of this Court was considering the plea of a candidate though belonging to the Actual Line of Control (ALC) category, having applied for the certificate, obtained the same and submitted the certificate after the admission list was published for MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses. It was held that the candidate having not claimed the seat under reserved category and the certificate having been submitted before the selection committee only after making selection, is not entitled to get any relief. "10. It was held that the candidate having not claimed the seat under reserved category and the certificate having been submitted before the selection committee only after making selection, is not entitled to get any relief. "10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in decision reported as MANU/SC/1143/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 1803 (Bedanga similar claim made by a candidate for combined competitive examination for various posts and the candidate, who has applied as a general candidate claims consideration of her candidature as SC candidate by submitting SC certificate after completion of examination process. The High Court entertained the writ petition and gave direction to consider her candidature as SC candidate, which was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by specifically stating that the cast certificate submitted after selection process was over and publication of the select list ought not to have been entertained by the High Court and the candidate once applied as a general candidate is not entitled to claim his/her candidate under SC category. It is worthy to mention here that if the seat was claimed under ALC category and the certificate was produced later on the possibility of considering the case will arise. 11. In this case the 1st respondent has not claimed seat under ALC category for admission in PG course, hence order of the learned Single Judge giving direction to treat the 1st respondent as ALC category candidate and consider her for admission against the vacant seat cannot be accepted when the 1st respondent was not vigilant while submitting her application as well as in getting renewal of her ALC status, which the 1st respondent could get only after the merit list for admission was published. In this case, it may be noted that the candidate did not claim initially against the reserved category and submitted the certificate after the admission list was published for the diploma courses, thus after the selection process was completed, by which time some vested rights have accrued in favour of selected candidates and as such the Court declined the relief sought. 6. Balbir Singh v. State & Ors., 2016 (3) JKJ 235 [HC] The petitioner who applied for the post of Constable, J&K Police (Executive) of District Samba was not considered against the RBA Category despite his belonging to RBA Category and having submitted certificate in respect thereto after the cut-off date on 3rd March, 2016. 6. Balbir Singh v. State & Ors., 2016 (3) JKJ 235 [HC] The petitioner who applied for the post of Constable, J&K Police (Executive) of District Samba was not considered against the RBA Category despite his belonging to RBA Category and having submitted certificate in respect thereto after the cut-off date on 3rd March, 2016. A Single Bench of this Court rejected the claim as it was found that the petitioner did not apply under the RBA Category, but under the General Category and made a request for being considered under the RBA Category months after the cut-off date by submitting the RBA Certificate. 7. Ankush Singh Mankotia v. J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination & Ors. : MANU/JK/0606/2016 A Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid case held that delayed submission of RBA certificate is fatal and held that the petitioner was not diligent in obtaining the certificate by approaching the authorities promptly. '19. No doubt, the last date had been extended to 19.03.2015 but the fact remains that fresh certificate produced by the petitioner i.e. Annexure-B was applied for only on 20.04.2015 and was issued on 02.06.2015 certifying the petitioner to be a Resident of Backward Area. As on the last date i.e. 19.03.2015, the petitioner did not have a valid RBA certificate since the certificate issued to him earlier was valid only upto 03.03.2015. ............................. ............................. 31. A perusal of the extract of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench makes it clear that a candidate must possess the eligibility on the cut off date and if he or she claims in the application form to belong to a particular category but is unable to produce the proof/certificate before the cut off date, then in that eventuality, the said candidate shall not be deprived of the benefit of the particular category and is entitled to produce the same before finalization of the selection. However, the same is subject to a caveat, viz, of the candidate not having been able to produce the certificate/proof before the cut-off date in spite of his/her best efforts. This is not the position here as is evident from the position noted above. 32. However, the same is subject to a caveat, viz, of the candidate not having been able to produce the certificate/proof before the cut-off date in spite of his/her best efforts. This is not the position here as is evident from the position noted above. 32. Having taken into account all aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench, for the reason that the petitioner had submitted a certificate of his belonging to RBA category which was dated 03.03.2010 and was valid for a period of five years i.e. upto 02.03.2015. The application form was submitted on 07.03.2015 i.e. after the expiry of the validity period of the certificate ..................." It may be noted that this decision is contrary to a number of decisions of larger Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme as discussed above. 24. From the conspectus of case laws discussed above, we can make the following observations. A. It is a well settled legal proposition that in seeking public employment, normally and ordinarily, the candidates must possess the requisite essential qualifications for the post as on the cut-off date in terms of the rules, or as may be fixed in the advertisement. Consequently, the candidates would be required to submit all the requisite supporting certificates/documents on or before the cut-off date mentioned, failing which, the candidature may be rejected. This is in consonance with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution so that there is equal opportunity amongst candidates equally placed by ensuring competition with level playing field so that any one which is deficient in the essential qualification is not allowed to compete with those who possess the essential qualifications. Further, if any candidate not having the essential qualifications is allowed to apply, claim can be made by other ineligible candidates to apply, which cannot be permitted. B. While the above proposition of law remains a fundamental part of service law jurisprudence relating to public employment, we have noticed certain exceptions carved out that when it relates to submission of certain documents/certificates as seen in some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda (supra), Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), Alok Kumar Singh (supra) and decisions of this Court in Rimpi Ohri (supra) et al. as noticed above, treating to be an essentially procedural lapse which can be condoned under certain circumstances. C. However, when we closely examine these decisions, it would be noticed that in fact, there is no fundamental departure from the above well settled broad proposition of law, in as much as, there is still insistence that on the last date fixed or the cut-off date, the candidate must possess or claim to have possessed the qualification or the attribute required. Thus, the relaxation granted was in respect of submitting/furnishing of document/ certificate to support the status, of which the candidate was already possessed of and not of such qualification like academic qualification which has to be obtained by the candidate by making effort and does not naturally inhere in the person by virtue of his status/position. For example, in Dolly Chhanda (supra), the candidate was a daughter of an ex-armyman and had applied for the seat reserved for the ex-army man, but submitted a defective certificate and the valid certificate was submitted belatedly. Being a daughter of an ex-armyman is not an acquired qualification but inherited or naturally endowed by virtue of being the daughter an ex-armyman. In Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the OBC certificate was belatedly submitted. A person does not become an OBC by acquiring this status by effort. It is inherited by birth without putting any effort. In Alok Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed submission of caste/domicile certificate belatedly. In this case also, the certificates pertain to qualifications which the candidates already possessed by virtue of belonging to a community or by residence. In Rimpi Ohri (supra), the petitioner was already a resident in the Line of Actual Control Area (LAC) at the time of submission of the application and this Court took the view that non-renewal of certificate does not change the status of the applicant if he or she is actually residing in the area for which the certificate has been issued, originally and, thus, allowed submission of the renewed certificate belatedly. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Tasneem Kounsar (supra) by observing that a distinction has to be drawn between the qualifications which are required to be possessed by an applicant by effort and other qualifications which are inherited by a person or which become available to a person on account of his being a resident of a particular area. Also, in other cases in Assad Ullah Khan (supra), for similar reason, belated submission of certificate was allowed by the Court. D. The common thread which runs through these decisions is that even when certificates were allowed to be submitted belatedly, the candidates were already residents of the concerned place or were already possessed of the attribute/status as regards caste or community or the category to which the candidates belonged to and the certificates were considered as proof of the attribute and status or position they were already possessed of. These attributes were not obtained after the cut-off date and the belated submission of such certificate was considered to be a mere procedural lapse. E. It may be also noted that the relaxation in allowing submission of certificate was permitted considering the beneficial purpose of reserving posts for these categories of candidates. Possession of Domicile Certificate ensures that only who are domiciles of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir can apply for the posts, thus, has a beneficial element to the recruitment process by not opening the door of employment to the world at large. F. It would be also noticed that in some cases belated submission of certificate was allowed where the candidates had made the requisite declaration about residential status or caste etc. at the time of submitting application within time. This is for the reason that if a candidate did not initially or originally claim at the time of submission of application that he belongs to a region in LAC or backward area (RBA) or belongs to ST/SC/OBC etc., he cannot seek the benefit attached to such position/status later on, by submitting supporting document/ certificate at a later stage after the cut-off date. It is for this reason that the Court did not accept belated submission of certificates in Sovia Anand (supra), Balbir Singh (supra) as the candidates initially applied under general category but subsequently claimed to be in the reserved category by belated submission of such certificates. It is for this reason that the Court did not accept belated submission of certificates in Sovia Anand (supra), Balbir Singh (supra) as the candidates initially applied under general category but subsequently claimed to be in the reserved category by belated submission of such certificates. G. It would be also noticed that the Courts allowed submission of certificate during the recruitment process and not after completion of the process and declaration of result. This is for the germane reason that once the competition is over and certain rights get accrued to other candidates by virtue of their performance and merit, such result ought not be disturbed by belated claims as otherwise, uncertainty and delay would ensure in the recruitment process which is to be avoided. H. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed belated submission of certificate to claim benefit of reservation for ex-servicemen in Dolly Chhanda (supra), and in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed to submit the caste/tribe certificate, as well in Alok Kumar (supra) after the cut-off date. The contrary view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) is based on the broad proposition of law that a person which acquires the prescribed qualification after the cut-off date is not eligible and his case cannot be considered. As discussed above, in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), the candidate did not possess the technical qualification as on the last date fixed. I. The Full Bench of this Court in Mahesh Kumar Raina (supra) has also taken a similar view in allowing belated submission of certificate with the caveat as observed in Ankush Singh Mankotia (supra) that best efforts must be made by the candidate to obtain the certificate before the cut-off date. In our view, the caveat placed by the Full Bench of this Court in Ankush Singh Mankotia (supra) is to ensure that no candidate is negligent in obtaining the certificate. Thus, non-submission of the requisite certificate should not be because of any utter negligence or undue delay, which would depend on the facts of each case. This is for the reason that because of the laches on the part of an applicant, there should not be scope for causing prejudice to the rights of other candidates which may have accrued to them after the selection process is completed and select list published. This is for the reason that because of the laches on the part of an applicant, there should not be scope for causing prejudice to the rights of other candidates which may have accrued to them after the selection process is completed and select list published. J. Thus, what we have observed is that the Courts have distinguished qualification obtained by effort like educational qualification, where non possession of the same on the last date of submission of application was held fatal, whereas, in respect of inherited or inherent qualification or attribute, laxity was shown in the belated submission of certificates relating to such qualification/attribute as in the case of caste or domicile certificates under certain circumstances. 25. On analysing the different decisions of the Courts as above, we would like to examine the present case at hand. 26. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner had claimed to be a domicile of the UT of Jammu &Kashmir when she submitted her application form in time for the preliminary examination, though apparently she did not submit the domicile certificate before the cut-off date but after the cut-off date. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appellant is actually a permanent resident of the UT of Jammu &Kashmir, in support of which she had submitted the Resident of Backward Area certificate dated 10.04.2021 and Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) dated 07.08.2012. She had applied for the advertised posts under the reserved category of RBA. It needs to be reiterated here that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground of late submission of Domicile certificate after the cut-off date. 27. As per Government Notification S.O. 166, dated 18.05.2020, notifying the 'Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Domicile Certificate (Procedure) Rules 2020' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), any person who has resided for a period of fifteen years in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir or has studied for a period of seven years and appeared in class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the Union Territory of Jammu Kashmir is eligible for grant of Domicile Certificate as provided under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 5 further provides that any such person eligible for Domicile Certificate under Rule 3, categories whereof are specified in Column II, can apply to the relevant Competent Authority as specified in Column IV along with documents specified in Column V against each category for issuance of Domicile Certificate. Under Column II, the category of person has been described as Permanent Resident Certificate holder and the document mentioned under Column V is the Permanent Resident Certificate. The petitioner who has been residing in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for more than 15 years, and who is a holder of the Permanent Resident Certificate is, thus, eligible for grant of Domicile Certificate as per the rules. She was already in possession of the Permanent Residence Certificate which would be the basis for grant of Domicile Certificate. Not only this, the petitioner had submitted her Resident of Backward Area certificate dated 10.04.2021 along with her application and the said certificate can be issued only when a person has resided in the area for a period not less than 15 years, before the date of application. Further the competent Authority for issuance of domicile certificate as well as the RBA certificate is also the same i.e. Tehsildar. 28. It can thus, be said that though the petitioner submitted her Domicile Certificate after the cut-off date, she was already a domicile of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir in terms of the RBA certificate supported by Permanent Residence Certificate, though the proof thereof in the form of the proper Domicile Certificate was obtained and submitted after the cut-off date of 12.04.2021. 29. In our view her candidature could not have been rejected in spite of submission of the Domicile Certificate after the cut-off date. The petitioner was already having the status of a domicile of the UT when she submitted her application before the cut-off date by virtue of being in possession of RBA certificate, supported by PRC. 30. The attending circumstances in the present case are that:- (a) In her original application she had claimed that she is a resident of UT of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not the case of the Respondents that she is not a resident of nor domiciled in UT of Jammu and Kashmir or that she is not a permanent resident of UT of Jammu & Kashmir. It is not the case of the Respondents that she is not a resident of nor domiciled in UT of Jammu and Kashmir or that she is not a permanent resident of UT of Jammu & Kashmir. (b) Though she did not submit the Domicile Certificate along with her original application, she submitted the RBA certificate along with the Permanent Resident Certificate, which also proves that she is permanently domiciled in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir. (c) It is not that she was claiming her domicile status as a resident of UT of Jammu and Kashmir at a later stage after the cut-off date. (d) She submitted the Domicile Certificate at the time of submission of application form for the Main Examination and hence, before the completion of the recruitment process, thus, not adversely affecting any accrued right of any candidate. (e) It is not that there was undue delay in submitting the Domicile Certificate, as she submitted this certificate when the applicants who were successful in the preliminary examination had to submit their forms for the Main examination again, with supporting documents including Domicile Certificate. Thus, though it was submitted belatedly, it was also not a case where there was an inordinate delay or gross negligence or fraudulent act on the part of the petitioner, which caused any prejudice to anyone. (f) It could be argued that if the application of the petitioner is allowed, the case of other candidates whose candidature were also rejected because of delayed submission of certificates, could not be ignored. In our view this order cannot be applicable to them as they have neither approached this Court nor sought permission to take part in the Main Examination and Interview as the present petitioner. Only the petitioner pursued her legal remedy earnestly. 31. While making the above observations, we have kept in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda (supra) which deals with belated submission of caste certificates. Though caste certificates may not be same as the residence certificates, yet they are not acquired qualities like academic qualifications, which one obtains after passing and declaration of results by the examining/competent authority. On the other hand, caste certificates and residential certificates generally inhere in the person. Of course, unlike caste certificates, resident certificates can change with the change in the location/residence of the person. On the other hand, caste certificates and residential certificates generally inhere in the person. Of course, unlike caste certificates, resident certificates can change with the change in the location/residence of the person. However, till there is change in the residence/location, it will inherently be with the person concerned. Thus, unlike academic qualifications which are acquired, caste certificate or residence certificate inhere in the person. 32. For the reasons discussed above, we allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order 03.02.2022 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, Jammu regarding the candidature, as far as the petitioner is concerned, and consequently, the impugned order dated 01.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, is also set aside 33. Accordingly, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, Jammu, is directed to declare the result of the petitioner and, if the petitioner is found to be meritorious enough amongst the candidates applying against the posts reserved for candidates under the Resident of Backward Area (RBA) category for being included in the merit list for consideration for appointment, she shall be so included in the merit list for the purpose of giving appointment. 34. With the observations and directions made hereinabove, the present petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.