JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher in B.C.-I category (direct recruitment) in view of Post-Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination, 2017, pursuant to Advertisement No. 10/2017. The petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to recommend his case for appointment in the reserved category in view of Caste Certificate dated 9.7.2018 issued in favour of the petitioner. The Facts. 3. An advertisement was issued, being Advertisement No. 10/2017 for appointment on the post of Postgraduate Trained Teacher. Altogether 140 posts were advertised for direct recruitment in the subject Economics. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for such appointment. 4. The caste certificate of the petitioner was issued by the Circle Officer, Chas on 26.3.2017, which is at Annexure-2 of the writ petition. This caste certificate duly certifies that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class (B.C.-I) category. There is another caste certificate issued in favor of the petitioner dated 14.6.2017 which duly certifies that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class Category. 5. Having found the application of the petitioner to be in order, admit card was issued. The date of examination was scheduled on 11.3.2018. There is yet another caste certificate issued on 9.7.2018 in favour of the petitioner, which is issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. This caste certificate also certifies that this petitioner belongs to B.C.-I category. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and finally the result was published on 26.7.2018 wherein, the roll number of this petitioner figured in the list of select candidate. On 3.8.2018, the petitioner appeared for certificate verification of all the certificates including the caste certificate dated 9.7.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas. However, on the same day i.e. on 3.8.2018, a notice was issued to the petitioner specifically to the effect that his OBC certificate was not valid for employment in Jharkhand. Thereafter, final result was published in which the roll number of this petitioner, being 82201800269 figured against B.C.I category (Annexure-8). However, on 26.9.2018, a notice was issued to the petitioner stating therein that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was at the level of Circle Officer, which was not valid for appointment. Thereafter, final result was published in which the roll number of this petitioner, being 82201800269 figured against B.C.I category (Annexure-8). However, on 26.9.2018, a notice was issued to the petitioner stating therein that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was at the level of Circle Officer, which was not valid for appointment. Thereafter, the School Education and Literacy Department issued a notice on 12.10.2018 for further counselling, scheduled on 23.10.2018, but the name of the petitioner did not figure, which is evident from Annexure-11 of the writ petition. On 14.10.2018, the petitioner, however, submitted a representation enclosing the certificate dated 9.7.2018. Since the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of counseling, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. 6. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner assiduously argues that the petitioner has produced three caste certificates. The first was issued on 26.3.2017 (Annexure-2); the second was issued on 14.6.2017 (Annexure-3) and third was issued on 9.7.2018 (Annexure-5). It is contended that the caste certificates dated 14.6.2017 and 9.7.2018 have been issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer who is the Competent Authority for the purpose of employment. Learned counsel submits that at different points of time, different formats were prescribed and different caste certificates in different formats were given to the petitioner and for the same, the petitioner is not at fault. It is the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand to issue the caste certificates in a particular format. The petitioner applied and then the caste certificate was issued and as such, the same is valid. Mr. Tandon, further argues that there is no cut-off date fixed in the advertisement for submission of caste certificate. In fact, the petitioner was given time to produce the caste certificate by a particulate date and by that particulate date, the certificate issued on 9.7.2018 was produced by the petitioner, which was issued by the Competent Authority. In this view of the matter, the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for reserved category. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 . In this view of the matter, the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for reserved category. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 . Learned counsel further submits that the said judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Anil Tanti Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 1 JCR 226 and the same was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. Relying on these decisions, learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he does not belong to B.C.-I category, despite the fact that the documents are already there on the record and the same was produced within time. Learned counsel further refers Clause 10(III) of the advertisement to the effect that only condition in the advertisement was that the caste certificate must have been issued after 31.3.2015. He submits that the certificate of this petitioner was finally issued on 9.7.2018 by the Competent Authority (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) and the same is admittedly issued after 31.3.2015, which is strictly in terms with the advertisement. No cut-off date is fixed in the advertisement. As such, rejecting the claim of petitioner for appointment in the reserved category is totally arbitrary and illegal and the writ petition is fit to be allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for Respondents 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the JSSC as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in view of the fact that caste certificates produced by the petitioner were not in terms with the advertisement, his case for appointment in the reserved category has been rejected, which is legal and valid in accordance with law. Mr. Piprawall submits that the first certificate issued by the Circle Officer is not valid; the second certificate was, however, issued by the Competent Authority, but the same is with respect to employment in Central Government; and the third certificate dated 9.7.2018 was issued after the last date of submission of application form and hence, the same is also not valid for the purpose of this employment. In reply to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no cut-off date was fixed for submission of caste certificate is concerned, Mr. Piprawall submits that it was specifically mentioned in Clause-10 (III)(v) of the Advertisement that the candidates should necessarily mention the number and issuance date of the required caste certificates in the online application form. Meaning thereby, the last date for submission of caste certificate is the date, by which online application form can be filled up and in the present case, the last date for submission of online application was 30.12.2017. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has mentioned his caste certificate number, being JHCC/2017/536910 dated 14.6.2017 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chas in his online application form. He further submits that this caste certificate is not valid for extending the benefit of reservation in view of the terms and conditions of the advertisement because this certificate is meant for appointments under the Government of India and not in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, after considering every aspects of the matter, notice dated 3.8.2018 was issued to the petitioner and after receipt of reply, the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 8. Learned counsel further submits that this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2020) 1 JBCJ (HC) has been pleased to consider the same and similar issue, which is involved in the present writ petition and after distinguishing the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), has rejected the writ petition. Findings of the Court 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, it appears that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2020) 1 JBCJ 465 (HC). However, this Court deals with this matter separately in extenso. 10. In the Advertisement No. 10/2017, there was specific stipulation for reservation in Clause No. 10. It was mentioned therein that reserved categories candidates will have to obtain valid caste certificates in prescribed Proforma issued by Competent Authority. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2020) 1 JBCJ 465 (HC). However, this Court deals with this matter separately in extenso. 10. In the Advertisement No. 10/2017, there was specific stipulation for reservation in Clause No. 10. It was mentioned therein that reserved categories candidates will have to obtain valid caste certificates in prescribed Proforma issued by Competent Authority. Clause 10(III) prescribed that the candidates belonging to SC/ST and B.C.I/B.C.-II categories were required to submit their caste certificate in prescribed format which was issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer. Clause 10 (III) (ii) of the advertisement further stipulated that the caste certificate issued after 31.3.2015 in prescribed format was only valid for claiming the benefit of reservation for B.C.-I and B.C.-II categories candidates. Further Clause 10(III)(v) prescribed that the candidates were required to fully satisfy himself before submission of application form that the entries made by them in their online application form is fully correct and after submission of the application form, candidates will not be allowed to make any correction in the entries made by them in their online application form which may affect the result. It is also stipulated that after conducting the examination, the Commission will verify the testimonials of the candidates and after verification of testimonials, the Commission will take final decision. 11. The advertisement in question was issued on 01.12.2017 and the last date of submission of online application was fixed on 30.12.2017 which was further extended upto 10.1.2018. As per clause 10 (III)(v), the petitioner is required to mention number and issuance date of desired certificates in the application form. Admittedly, prior to submission of online form, the petitioner has two caste certificates. The first caste certificate is of dated 26.3.2017 issued by the Circle Offer and second one is of dated 14.6.2017 issued by Sub Divisional Officer. First caste certificate dated 26.3.2017 is not valid as per clause 10(III(iii) of the advertisement. Therefore, the petitioner has mentioned the particulars of caste certificate issued on 14.6.2017. This caste certificate though issued by the competent authority as per the terms and conditions of advertisement, but the same is valid for extending the benefit of reservation only in the Central Government services and not in the State Government services. Therefore, the petitioner has mentioned the particulars of caste certificate issued on 14.6.2017. This caste certificate though issued by the competent authority as per the terms and conditions of advertisement, but the same is valid for extending the benefit of reservation only in the Central Government services and not in the State Government services. Considering this aspect of the matter, the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered in the reserved category and therefore, his candidature was rejected. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no cut-off date fixed for submission of caste certificate and therefore, the third caste certificate dated 9.7.2018, issued by the competent authority, is valid for all purposes. His further contention is that the petitioner has produced this caste certificate at the time of document verification, i.e. before recommendation for appointment and his candidature ought to have been considered for appointment. 13. The aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misplaced in view of clause 10(III)(v) of the advertisement. It was specifically mentioned therein that before submission of online application form, the candidate should mention the particulars of certificates. Therefore, it can comfortably be said that there is last date of submission of caste certificate and in this particular case, the last of submission of caste certificate is dated 10.01.2018 i.e., the last date of submission of online application form. After the last date of submission of caste certificate, the petitioner has produced the same at the time of document verification, which was rightly not considered by the respondent-Commission, following the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 14. Second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the Judgment rendered in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the Commission is bound to accept the caste certificate issued after the last date of submission of the online application form. 14. Second limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the Judgment rendered in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the Commission is bound to accept the caste certificate issued after the last date of submission of the online application form. The ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya case is not applicable in the present case because in Ram Kumar Gijroya’s case, the submission of OBC certificate was introduced at the time of publication of the result whereas in the present case the specific criteria has been mentioned in the Advertisement that reserved categories candidates will have to obtain the caste certificate first and thereafter only they will submit their online application form mentioning therein the caste certificate number and date of issue. Meaning thereby, the caste certificate must be issued before or by the last date of submission of online application form i.e. 10.01.2018 in the proforma prescribed in the Advertisement issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer. The relevant Para-8 and 14 of the judgment are being quoted herein below:- “8. the requirement of submitting the O.B.C. certificate before the cut-off date of the application was introduced by the respondent D.S.S.S.B. only while declaring the result on 15.12.2008 holding that appellant was not eligible for selection to the post of Staff Nurse as the O.B.C. certificate was received after the cut-off date”. “14. the learned single judge of the High Court has rightly held that the Petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefits of reservation of O.B.C category.” 15. It further appears that in the instant selection process, specific criteria has been mentioned in the respective advertisements for obtaining the caste certificate before or by the last date of submission of online application forms and details of the caste certificates were required to be mentioned in the online application forms and as such the Ram Kumar Gijroya’s case, is not applicable in this case. 16. It is further relevant to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No 610/2017 and L.P.A. No.618/2017 (Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Vs. 16. It is further relevant to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No 610/2017 and L.P.A. No.618/2017 (Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) after considering the several judgments of this Hon’ble court and other Hon’ble High Courts has been pleased to held that “a coordinate bench in the case of Prem Chand Kumar (Supra) distinguished between default or delay in furnishing caste certificate and residential certificates and decided the case against the applicant on default on the latter count. The coordinate Bench opined that no leniency could be shown by the Court if the cut –off date is crossed and it was upto the employing body to relax any qualification norm”. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Para-21 of the judgment has further been pleased to hold that “the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma (Supra) examined the question as to whether candidature of the OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date from submission of applications. In these two proceeding, that is not the question.” 17. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 610/2017 and L.P.A. 618/2017 has been pleased to hold that “where there is no cut-off date fixed for submission of caste certificate in that case Ram Kumar Gijroya case is applicable and where there is specific date i.e. cut-off date mentioned in the Advertisement for submission of caste certificate, the ratio of Ram Kumar Gijroya case will not be applicable”. It is not out of place to mention here that judgment and Order dated 12.10.2018 passed in L.P.A. No.618/2017 and L.P.A 610 of 2017 were challenged by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dismiss the same with the observation “however, the question of Law is kept open”. After passing the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 32332/2018, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1921/2018 Rohan Thakur Vs. State and Ors. After passing the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 32332/2018, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1921/2018 Rohan Thakur Vs. State and Ors. again considered the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya case as well as Order passed by this Hon’ble Court in L.P.A. No.610 /2017 i.e. Anil Tanti case and Hon’ble Division Bench after hearing the matter has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid case with an observation vide Para-3, 4, 5,6 and 7 that in view of the specific stipulation made in the Advertisement about obtaining the caste certificate before last date of submission of Application form, the ratio laid down in Ram Kumar Gijroya case and Anil Tanti case are not applicable. 18. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 469 /2015 (Prem Chand Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand And Ors.) vide its Order dated 21.06.2018 has been pleased to hold that in view of the specific criteria mentioned in the Advertisement about submission of the caste and residential certificate along with application form upto the last date of submission of application form for extending the benefit of reservation, the prayer of the petitioner can’t be allowed for submission of aforesaid Certificate after the last date of submission of application form in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya case and further been pleased to hold that “much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in ( 2016 (4) SCC 754 ), in which it has permitted to supply the documents after the cut of date. Perhaps, it is only the exception to catena of the decisions. We have to look carefully at the facts of that case. In the facts of that reported case, explicitly the condition was imposed to supply a particular type of Certificate, after the result was declared. The format was given after the result was declared (as per Para-8 of the said judgment). It is a distinguishable feature. We have to look carefully at the facts of that case. In the facts of that reported case, explicitly the condition was imposed to supply a particular type of Certificate, after the result was declared. The format was given after the result was declared (as per Para-8 of the said judgment). It is a distinguishable feature. In the facts of the present case, looking to clause 12 of the public Advertisement which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, Residential Certificate as well as Caste Certificate issued by an Officer not below the Rank of Sub-divisional Officer was attached with the application form. This appellant (original Petitioner) has submitted the Caste Certificate correctly, whereas, Residential Certificate was not supplied as per the requirement. This fact make the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid reported decision and further been pleased to dismiss the L.P.A. in terms of order dated 21.06.2018”. 19. Further, the Hon’ble Division Bench in view of the specific stipulation made in the Advertisement No.04/2013 has been pleased to hold in L.P.A. No. 169/2015 (Rishi Kumar Vs. J.P.S.C. and Ors) vide Order dated 1.09.2015 that “this Appellant could not produce the caste certificate of B.C-II on or before 10.01.2014 in the format which is prescribed by the J.P.S.C, as mentioned in the Advertisement, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. This appellant cannot get benefits of any reservation for the seat of the B.C–II category and therefore he is considered as General category candidate by the J.P.S.C. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned single judge in W.P.(C) 842/2015 dated 27.02.2015 (This Order relates to submission of OBC caste certificate meant for Government of India services which has been held not valid for extending the benefits of reservation in state because in Jharkhand State there are two category of Backward Class category as i.e. B.C-I and B.C-II). 20. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State and Ors. 20. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State and Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 6149/2018., vide order dated 29.01.2019, it has been held that “Benefits of reservation to a member of B.C-I category is to be extended in favour of such candidate who is not coming under creamy-layer but the caste certificate is simplicitor as a caste certificate showing the petitioner a member of the B.C-I category but whether he is entitled to get benefits of reservation in the initial recruitment would be depend when a certificate to that effect would be issued by the competent authority taking into consideration the income but the same is not available in the caste certificate as Annexed as annexure-6”. 21. The present writ petition is also not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed by this Court in view of the settled law that selection process has to be completed strictly in terms of the criteria mentioned in the Advertisement as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors. reported in (2011) 12 SCC page 85. Paragraph-29 and 32 of the Judgment rendered in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 , reads as under : “29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” … … … 32. In the fact of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, he same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity 29 RC card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list.” 22. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, the same and similar matter has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Mahto Vs. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, the same and similar matter has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 1 JBCJ 465 (HC), wherein this Court held as under:- “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in view of the settled principles of law, this Court is of the considered view that prayer as made by the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the same will amount to violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that other candidates who could not submit their online application forms due to non-availability of the requisite Caste Certificates, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, up to the last date of submission of online application forms, will be discriminated, as equal opportunity has to be given to all the candidates. It is not case of the petitioners that any candidate securing lesser marks than the petitioners, have been selected under unreserved category. Since petitioners failed to fulfill requisite conditions stipulated in the advertisement and could not submit valid caste certificate issued by competent authority within stipulated period, their candidatures under respective reserved categories have rightly been rejected. There is no case that any person having lesser marks than the petitioners have been declared successful under unreserved category ignoring the petitioners. Petitioners have been considered under unreserved category and no person below the rank of petitioners have been considered under unreserved category. No ground for any interference is made out.” 23. With the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal proposition and judicial pronouncements, no case is made out for the petitioner for interference in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.