JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Vinod Kumar learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners. 2. This intra-Court appeal is against the judgment and the order dated 2.12.2022 passed in Writ A No. 15830 of 2022 (Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) whereby the writ petition of the writ petitioner was allowed. The case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that an advertisement was published on 22.6.2021 for recruitment on the post of Community Health Officers (in short 'CCHN') for as many as 2,800 vacancies. As per the advertisement, the tentative dates for filling of online application form was 30.6.2021 and the closure of online application form was 20.7.2021. The writ petitioner claiming himself to be fully eligible and qualified in all respects applied in pursuance of the said advertisement under OBC category. On the basis of disclosure made in the application form submitted online, the writ petitioner was subjected to written examination, pursuant to which a final result of selected candidates were declared on 23.1.2021, however, the name of the writ petitioner found missing. It is the case of the writ petitioner that another list of selected candidates was published on 13.4.2022 in which the name of the writ petitioner figured at serial No. 854 under OBC category depicting that the petitioner was accorded posting at District Women Hospital, Gorakhpur. The writ petitioner approached the District Women Hospital at Gorakhpur on 18.4.2022 for being accorded joining and be sent for training. The writ petitioner alleges that the clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Officer asked for the testimonials and during the course of document verification an objections was raised that the writ petitioner did not produce the caste certificate as required under the advertisement. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that he had already produced the caste certificate showing him to be under OBC category dated 8.11.2013, however, on the objections raised by the respondents, he produced another caste certificate dated 8.9.2021 issued by the Tehsildar showing him to be an OBC category candidate. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that he had already produced the caste certificate showing him to be under OBC category dated 8.11.2013, however, on the objections raised by the respondents, he produced another caste certificate dated 8.9.2021 issued by the Tehsildar showing him to be an OBC category candidate. Since the writ petitioner was not sent for training, so the writ petitioner preferred Writ A No. 7362 of 2022 (Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) before this Court which on being taken up by the learned Single Judge on 8.8.2022, on the instructions obtained by the learned Standing Counsel that during the pendency of the said writ petition on 11.5.2022 the appointment of the writ petitioner was canceled, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction of the concerned authority to provide a copy of the order dated 11.5.2022 cancelling the appointment of the writ petitioner within a period of 7 days and liberty was accorded to the writ petitioner to challenge the same if aggrieved before the appropriate forum. 3. Questioning the order dated 11.5.2022/18.5.2022 placing his name in the waiting list and the order dated 15.9.2022 the writ petitioner preferred Writ A No. 15830 of 2022 (Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) seeking the following reliefs : ''(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.5.2022/IInd waiting 18.5.2022 and 15.9.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 respectively (Annexure 9) to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to participate in the on-going training provisionally for the post of Community Health Officer. (Iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to protect the seniority of the petitioner at par with his juniors as and when he may succeed to get his joining on the selected post i.e. Community Health Officer. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. (v) Award the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioners.'' 4. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. (v) Award the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioners.'' 4. The aforesaid Writ A No. 15830 of 2022 preferred by the writ petitioner on the basis of the instructions sought from the learned Standing Counsel on 11.11.2022 came to be allowed on 2.12.2022 directing the appellants herein to permit the petitioner to undergo the training for the post of Community Health Officer treating the certificate entitling him to be under OBC category dated 8.9.2021 as a valid certificate subject to fulfilling other conditions. 5. Aggrieved against the order dated 2.12.2022 passed in Writ A No. 15830 of 2022 the appellant/second respondent has filed the present intr-Court appeal. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties it would be apposite to notice the relevant terms and conditions of the advertisement governing the subject.- (5) ''IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS (ii) Candidates of Uttar Pradesh State, who are claiming reservation in their respective category (OBC, SC, ST, PWD and EWS), must submit the caste/requisite certificates in the prescribed format issued by competent authority and the time of document verification. Candidates having domicile of another State will be treated under the unreserved category. (xv) RESERVATIONS AND RELAXATIONS : Reservations and relaxations for SC/ST/OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)/PwD (Percentage of Disability - 40% or above) candidates will be provided as per guidelines of Government of India for the purpose. The reservation for PwD is on horizontal basis.'' NOTE: (iii) Candidates of Uttar Pradesh State who are claiming reservation in their respective category (OBC, SC, ST, PWD and EWS) must submit the caste/requisite certificates in the prescribed format issued by the competent authority at the time of document verification. Candidate having domicile of another State will be treated under Unreserved category.'' 7. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in allowing the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner inasmuch as the writ petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as Community Health Officer as he did not possess the requisite certificate of a competent authority declaring him to be belonging under OBC category. Elaborating the said submission it has been sought to be argued on behalf of the appellant/second respondent that as per the advertisement dated 22.6.2021 the last date of closure of online application form was 20.7.2021 and in view of the specific stipulations contained in para 5(ii) and (xv) under the heading of ''Important Instructions'' read with the Note (iii), a candidate of U.P. who are claiming reservation in their respective category (OBC, SC, ST, PWD and EWS) must possess a valid caste certificate on the date of submission of application form. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, as per the showing of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner had filed OBC category certificate dated 8.11.2013 alongwith the online application form which did not confirm to the requirement stipulated in the advertisement as in order to be under an OBC category, the OBC certificate should be just preceding the date of filling of the online application form and since in the present case the OBC certificate was dated 8.11.2013 which is approximately 8 years ago, thus, the same could not be relied upon in order to hold the writ petitioner belonging under OBC category. In order to buttress the said submission it is being further argued that Para 5(xv) under the heading of ''Important Instructions'' itself stipulates them an OBC, should be of non-creamy layer and in view of the fact that the writ petitioner relied upon the OBC certificate dated 8.11.2013 in the year 2021, thus, the OBC certificate cannot be said to be a valid document so as to hold the writ petitioner belonging to OBC category as income and the financial status of the writ petitioner might have changed in interregnum. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra further submits that the interpretation sought to be made by the learned Single Judge upon the Note (iii) of the advertisement dated 22.6.2021 while holding that the requirement of possessing the OBC certificate was at the stage of document verification is a clear misreading of the said provision as the true import of the provisions is that a candidate must possess OBC category certificate on the date of the application though required to be produced in original at the time of document verification. It has been further argued that the reliance placed upon by the learned Single Judge upon the judgment in Writ A No. 9359 of 2019 (Aditya Yadav v. State of U.P. and another) decided on 24.7.2019 was also misplaced and out of context as the said judgment related to the issue of domicile certificate which has no relevance in the present case which is a matter pertaining to OBC category wherein the aspect of creamy layer is to be considered. In addition to the same, it has also been argued that the caste certificate dated 8.9.2021 produced by the writ petitioner in order to hold that he belongs to OBC category is of no relevance as the same is post date of submission of online application form. It is, therefore, prayed that the intra-Court appeal be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside. 8. Countering the said submission, Sri Vinod Kumar, who appears for the respondent/writ petitioner has argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs no interference in view of the fact that the writ petitioner belongs to OBC category and is possessed with the OBC certificate issued by the competent authority on 8.11.2013 and 8.9.2021 which treats the writ petitioner to be under OBC category, not belonging to creamy layer. It is further argued that, since both the OBC certificates have neither been cancelled nor revoked and they are still in existence, thus, it is not open for the appellant to ignore the same while holding that one of the OBC certificates is of the year 2013 and the second is post submission of the application form. The submission is that might be the OBC certificate dated 8.11.2013 is much prior to the last date of submission of the online application form but, once the writ petitioner had submitted the OBC certificate dated 8.9.2021 during the document verification then the Note (iii) of the advertisement in question comes to his rescue. The submission is that might be the OBC certificate dated 8.11.2013 is much prior to the last date of submission of the online application form but, once the writ petitioner had submitted the OBC certificate dated 8.9.2021 during the document verification then the Note (iii) of the advertisement in question comes to his rescue. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has further argued that the issue with regard to recognition of principles of the submission of the OBC certificate at the time of document verification is no more res integra as the said issue stands decided by this Court in Writ A No. 20311 of 2018 (Imran Khan v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.4.2022 by the learned Single Judge as affirmed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 280 of 2022 (State of U.P. and others v. Imran Khan) decided on 25.7.2022, in the case of Aditya Yadav (supra) as well as by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Amrit Singh v. Union of India and another, 2019 Law Suit (Delhi) 2528. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record carefully. 10. Undisputably, an advertisement was published on 22.6.2021 by the appellant, Mission Director National Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow for recruitment of Community Health Officers, according to which as many as 2800 vacancies were advertised, break up whereof, Unreserved 1120, EWS 280, OBC 756, SC 588 and SC 56. The last date stipulated for filling online application form was 20.7.2021. Pleadings reveal that the writ petitioner filled an online application form on 3.7.2021 under OBC category. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that he was not aware of the terms and conditions envisaged in the advertisement in question. Para 5(ii) and (xv) under the heading of Important Instructions read with Note (iii), provided that with respect to reservations and relaxations the candidate must possess caste/requisite certificate in prescribed format issued by the competent authority. The crucial question which arises for determination in the present intra-Court appeal is to at what stage the candidate must possess OBC category certificate. Para 5(ii) and (xv) under the heading of Important Instructions read with Note (iii), provided that with respect to reservations and relaxations the candidate must possess caste/requisite certificate in prescribed format issued by the competent authority. The crucial question which arises for determination in the present intra-Court appeal is to at what stage the candidate must possess OBC category certificate. The argument of writ petitioner is that the requirement of submission of OBC category certificate is at the stage of document verification and not a date anterior to it, however, according to the appellants, the candidate must possess a valid OBC certificate on the date of submission of the application form. A conjoint reading of the stipulations contained in Para 5(ii) and (xv) under the heading of Important Instructions read with the Note (iii) shows that the candidate must be belonging to OBC category on the date of submission of the online application form in order to claim benefit under the said category. Our view further stands reinforced from the fact that in the application form itself, there is a specific clause under the heading of category, which implies that a person in order to be under OBC category must possess a valid document holding him to be under the said category. The concept of non-creamy layer in order to get the benefit of OBC category makes it explicitly clear that by possessing an OBC category certificate at a relevant point of time would not cloth a candidate to be belonging to OBC category for the time immemorial as the financial and the social status of the candidate might change with the passage of time. In case the interpretation sought to be suggested by the writ petitioners is taken into face value then it would create havoc and undesired result tantamounting to creating a situation whereby the very purpose of possessing OBC category certificate on the date of submission of the application form will stand eliminated. The basic purpose of possessing OBC certificate on the date of submission of the application form is to determine the status of a candidate who claims to be under OBC category. In a nutshell, a candidate cannot proclaim itself to be belonging to OBC category without a valid certificate issued by a competent authority. The basic purpose of possessing OBC certificate on the date of submission of the application form is to determine the status of a candidate who claims to be under OBC category. In a nutshell, a candidate cannot proclaim itself to be belonging to OBC category without a valid certificate issued by a competent authority. The selecting body also does not possess any independent mechanism to determine as to whether a candidate belongs to OBC category and creamy layer or not. Thus, in order to claim a special benefit, possession of a certificate of the competent authority is necessary and the first step required to be proceeded with at the end of the candidate is to fill an application form clearly setting out the details and his status apart from the issues relating to eligibility and suitability. Once the application form requires the candidate to fill the category to which he/she belongs then in order to claim a particular benefit, possession of a certificate of a competent authority is necessary, might be the selecting body may require the production of the same at the stage of document verification. 11. Here in the present case, the writ petitioner on the date of submission of the application form was possessing an OBC certificate dated 8.11.2013 containing a declaration that the writ petitioner does not belong to creamy layer category. As already discussed above, the said certificate was approximately 8 years prior to the submission of the application form and, thus, the same was rightly not considered by the appellants as it exhibited the financial and the social status of the writ petitioner a long time ago. As regards the OBC certificate produced by the writ petitioner dated 8.9.2021 during the course of document verification is concerned, the same is of no relevance as the same is subsequent to the submission of the application form. The law in this regard is well-settled that the eligibility is to be seen on the date of the application as not subsequent to it. The provisions of Note (iii) insofar as it requires for submission of the caste certificate at the time of document verification cannot be read in abstract or isolation as a literal interpretation is to be made with conjoint reading of the other clauses of the advertisement. 12. The provisions of Note (iii) insofar as it requires for submission of the caste certificate at the time of document verification cannot be read in abstract or isolation as a literal interpretation is to be made with conjoint reading of the other clauses of the advertisement. 12. The judgment in the case of Aditya Yadav (supra) relied upon by the learned Single Judge relates to the issue of domicile certificate, the parameters whereof are different and distinct as regards the OBC certificate. The learned Single Judge in the case of Aditya Yadav (supra) has opined that it is otherwise well-settled that the candidate who is a domicile of a State continues to retain the status as being resident of the State and in the matter of domicile certificate, cut of date is not material. 13. As regards reliance placed upon the Single Judge judgment in the case of Imran Khan (supra) the same will not come to the rescue of the writ petitioner particularly when the learned Single Judge in the said case had allowed the claim of the petitioner therein on the premise that the petitioner in the said case had got higher marks than the cut of marks of OBC (male category) and further no reasons were assigned by the respondents therein for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. In intra-Court appeal preferred against the said judgment in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 280 of 2022 the following was observed : ''Per contra, counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that the petitioner is a domicile of the State of Uttar Pradesh and certificate to that effect was issued on 25.6.2013 which has been brought on record at page 135 of the paper book. It is further contended that the caste certificate submitted by the respondent-petitioner was dated 20.4.2016 being issued after the date 1.4.2015 mentioned in the advertisement dated 29.12.2015 and as such there was no occasion for the appellants to treat the petitioner-respondent as a general category candidate ignoring the OBC certificate. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner is a domicile of the State of U.P. The only dispute is with regard to the date of issuance of the caste certificate. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner is a domicile of the State of U.P. The only dispute is with regard to the date of issuance of the caste certificate. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is an OBC category candidate and the marks obtained by him in the category of OBC is higher than the last OBC category candidate selected in the selection.'' 14. The above noted judgment of the Division Bench does not as a matter of rule laid down the principle of law that the authorities are under legal obligation to accept the OBC certificate post submission of application form. The judgment in the said case is confined to the peculiar facts as emerging therein and, thus, would not ipso facto apply in the case of the writ petitioner particularly when the stipulations contained in the advertisement in question does not permit for acceptance of OBC certificate post submission of application form. 15. Reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Amrit Singh (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not come to the rescue of the writ petitioner for the simple reason that in the said case there was a specific stipulation in the advertisement that in order to claim benefit under OBC category a candidate must possess OBC certificate issued on or after 1st October, 2015 three years preceding the closing date being 1st October, 2018. The petitioner in the said case though appeared in the written examination and was declared selected in January, 2019 under OBC category but when he was asked to appear for second phase of selection process which took place between 18 February, 2019 to 22 February, 2019, the petitioner submitted OBC certificate dated 29 December, 2014, thereafter he was granted time to produce OBC certificate issued in prescribed format. In the light of the said factual position the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 15 observed as under.- ''In the present case, the earlier certificate submitted by the petitioner is dated 29th December, 2014 and later on he obtained another certificate from the same authority on 26th February, 2018. In the light of the said factual position the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 15 observed as under.- ''In the present case, the earlier certificate submitted by the petitioner is dated 29th December, 2014 and later on he obtained another certificate from the same authority on 26th February, 2018. Although, it has been mentioned in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that the financial condition of a holder of a certificate is liable to change or fluctuate over a period of time but where both the OBC and creamy layer certificates are issued by the same authority and they reiterate that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy layer as per the norms laid down by Government of India, there is no occasion to presume that his final status might have varied between the intervening period with specific reference to the last date mentioned in the advertisement, i.e. 1st October, 2018 and he might have been covered in the creamy layer limit after the expiry of three years from the date mentioned in the certificate dated 29th December, 2014 i.e. 29th December, 2017 and he again came back within the definition of exclusion from ''creamy layer'' on 26th February, 2019.'' 16. Since in the present case at hand, the facts are naturally different, thus, the judgment in the case of Amrit Singh (supra) is distinguishable and will not be of any aid to the writ petitioner. 17. Viewing the case from all points of angle, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner was not entitled to be treated under the OBC category for being accorded appointment and consequently sent for training, thus, the learned Single Judge in our view had erred in law in allowing the writ petition, quashing the order impugned therein. Accordingly, the intra-Court appeal is allowed. 18. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.12.2022 passed in Writ A No. 15830 of 2021 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.