JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Prabhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Shri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. 2. Present petition has been filed against the communication dated 29.4.2023 issued by Under Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ('UPPSC' in short) and the further communication dated 10.5.2023 issued on behalf of the Appeal Authority of the UPPSC rejecting the request of the petitioner to be treated as a candidate belonging to Economically Weaker Section ('EWS' in short) category, while giving up her claim, Dependent of Freedom Fighter ('DFF' in short). 3. Facts relevant to decide the present controversy are, the UPPSC came out with the Advertisement No. A-5/E-1/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Advertisement'), dated 10.12.2022, inviting applications to participate at an Open Examination to be conducted by the UPPSC, for selection on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). In all, 303 vacancies were advertised. Of that, 123 vacancies fell under the Unreserved (General) category, while by way of vertical reservation provided, 81 vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, 63 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) category, 6 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Tribes (ST) category. Further, by way of horizontal reservation provided, 30 vacancies were reserved for EWS category, 15 vacancies were reserved for Ex-Servicemen category, 6 vacancies were reserved for DFF category, 60 vacancies were reserved for Women category and 12 vacancies were reserved for Persons with Disabilities category. Petitioner filled up the said form disclosing, she belonged to DFF & EWS categories. 4. Consequently, she was issued an admit card and she appeared at the Preliminary Examination on 12.2.2023. Upon declaration of the result of that examination, on 16.3.2023, she was included in the list of candidates declared successful. She was then required to fill up another form (to appear at the Mains (Written) Examination), and to submit documentary proof as to her eligibility and reservation claimed. 5. At that stage, the petitioner appears to have realized, she was not eligible to claim reservation under the DFF category. Thus, she wrote to the UPPSC on 29.3.2023, to be treated, non-DFF category candidate. 5. At that stage, the petitioner appears to have realized, she was not eligible to claim reservation under the DFF category. Thus, she wrote to the UPPSC on 29.3.2023, to be treated, non-DFF category candidate. It is that application moved by the petitioner that came to be rejected, by communication dated 29.4.2023, issued by the Under Secretary, UPPSC as was confirmed in appeal vide further communication dated 10.5.2023. At that stage and before the written examination could be held, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present petition. Upon hearing, on 22.5.2023, the following order was passed : "1. Heard Sri Prabhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. Submission is that the petitioner while filling up the form for preliminary examination by mistake applied as 'Dependent of Freedom Fighter' (for short "DFF") though she belongs to Economically Weaker Section (for short "EWS") category. Upon qualifying the preliminary examination, she realised her mistake and tried to fill up the form as a EWS category candidate. As far as the DFF, she sought correction in the application, which has been rejected. 3. Relying on Note 6 of Clause 7 pertaining to reservation under Advertisement No.A-5/E-1/2022, dated 10.12.2022, the Commission may not have cancelled the petitioner's candidature as she did not make any false or misleading claim as may invite action under sub Clause 18 of Clause 11 of the above advertisement. 4. Prima-facie the matter requires serious consideration. 5. Upon the matter being heard in the pre-lunch session, Sri M.N. Singh was required to produce the result of the preliminary examination concerning the present petitioner, in sealed cover. After lunch that result has been produced. The petitioner has obtained more than the cut off marks under EWS category. 6. Since the examination is to be held from tomorrow onwards, as an interim measure, it is provided that the Commission would allow the petitioner to appear in the examination provisionally subject to the final out come of the present writ petition. However final result of the petitioner may not be declared except with leave of the Court. 7. Since the issue involved is purely legal, learned counsel for the Commission prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter. However final result of the petitioner may not be declared except with leave of the Court. 7. Since the issue involved is purely legal, learned counsel for the Commission prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter. Thus we expect, the pleadings would be completed in the first week of July 2023. 8. Put up on 10.07.2023, in top ten cases. 9. The result has been returned to Sri M.N. Singh in sealed cover. 10. Copy of the order be provided to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself." 6. Consequent to the above order, the petitioner appeared at the Mains (Written) Examination. Its result is awaited. Meanwhile, pleadings are complete and accordingly the matter has been heard. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner are two fold. First, relying on Clause 2 of the Advertisement read with Clause 11(14) of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', it has been submitted, the information filled by the petitioner while applying through on-line mode, was not sacrosanct. It could be edited, and any inaccuracy therein, could be corrected by the candidate through on-line mode, without inviting any adverse consequence. Since, the last date for making the online correction had expired on 10.1.2023, by virtue of Clause 11(14), the petitioner was permitted to communicate such change through off-line mode i.e., through postal communication. UPPSC has erred in not entertaining such application for correction made by the petitioner on 29.3.2023 i.e., immediately after declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination. 8. Second, relying on Clause 7(6) pertaining to 'Reservation' read with Clause 11(30) of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', it has been submitted, as to reservation, incomplete disclosure of facts made by the petitioner (for the purpose of claiming reservation), did not invite the harsh consequence of cancellation of her candidature, rather, it invited the consequence of ineligibility to claim that (DFF) reservation, only. Thus, by way of example, it has been submitted, if a candidate claimed to be one belonging to a reserved category at the stage of preliminary examination and he failed to establish his credential as to that reservation, at the stage of filling up the form for Written (Mains) Examination, without making any 'false' or 'misleading' statement, he would remain entitled to be considered as an Unreserved (General) category candidate, but he may not lose his candidature, in entirety. 9. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to Clauses 7(7) and 7(23) to submit, different consequences would arise including rejection of reservation and even candidature, in different specified circumstances. Thus, a candidate who may not have annexed his eligibility certificates, to establish his 'Educational Qualifications', or a candidate who may have failed to submit his application on the prescribed form or failed to disclose his date of birth or to have not mentioned or to have disclosed wrong date of birth etc., would suffer the harsh consequence of cancellation of candidature, in entirety. 10. Last, it has been submitted, under the General Instruction no.3, that is also a part of the Advertisement, it was open to a candidate to seek reservation under more than one category. However, even in a case of proper documentation made -to claim all such reservations, such candidate would be entitled to only one reservation - which may be more beneficial, in his facts. 11. Referring to the facts of the present case, it has been submitted, the petitioner may, at most, have failed to establish her claim for reservation as a DFF candidate. Insofar as she had not filed any document in support of such claim, her claim may never be described as a 'false' and/or a 'misleading' claim. For that conclusion to arise, there must have pre-existed, a case of positive action or concealment practiced by the petitioner, in making a 'false' or 'misleading' claim. A simple case of incorrect disclosure or incomplete disclosure may never be equated to a false or misleading claim as may lead to such a harsh consequence, in law. Insofar as the petitioner is seen to have obtained more than the cutoff marks for an EWS category candidate, she did not lose her right to compete at the written examination as an EWS candidate. 12. Insofar as the petitioner is seen to have obtained more than the cutoff marks for an EWS category candidate, she did not lose her right to compete at the written examination as an EWS candidate. 12. As to the Notification dated 24.3.2023 issued after the declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination (Clause 4 thereof), it has been submitted, that change in the eligibility for the Mains (Written) Examination was first sought to be enforced by the UPPSC vide that notification issued during the ongoing selection process. That has been resisted on the fundamental principle, UPPSC may not change its procedure (to make selections), during an ongoing selection process. The change, if at all, would apply prospectively, to fresh selections, only. 13. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the full bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 156 of 2017 (Gaurav Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 3 Ors.) and connected matters, decided on 4.5.2017. He has also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in T. Nadu Computer SC B.Ed. G.T. Welf. Society vs. Higher Sec. Scl. Computer Tech. Assn. & Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 517 and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 167. 14. On the other hand, Shri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel for the UPPSC submits, the terms and conditions of the Advertisement are sacrosanct. Besides the Clause 4 of the Notification dated 24.3.2023, even under the original Advertisement, all candidates were mandatorily required to submit their online form, by the cutoff date 10.1.2023, clearly disclosing the category under which they were claiming their eligibility. The petitioner having claimed to be a person belonging to DFF category, she may never have changed her category, later. Therefore, the UPPSC has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner arising from her application dated 29.3.2023, seeking change of category. 15. Second, it has been submitted, the only provision to allow for change of category, existed under Clause 2 of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line'. The date for the same expired on 10.1.2023. The petitioner failed to take benefit of the same. 15. Second, it has been submitted, the only provision to allow for change of category, existed under Clause 2 of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line'. The date for the same expired on 10.1.2023. The petitioner failed to take benefit of the same. Then, it has been submitted, at the stage of filling the form for the Mains (Written) Examination, further requirement arose to the petitioner to file documents in support of the information furnished by her in her original application (submitted through online mode). At that stage, the petitioner could not have chosen -to not file the necessary certificates. Referring to Clause 11(7) of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', it has been submitted, the consequence of non-filing of such documents is provided by way of cancellation of the candidature, in entirety. Since the petitioner did not file the certificates/documents to establish that she belonged to DFF category, she cannot escape the consequence of cancellation of her candidature. 16. In support of above, reference has also been made to the provision of Clause 7(18) of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', to submit, change of category or sub-category was not permissible to the petitioner after 10.1.2023 i.e., after the cut-off date. Since it is the own case of the petitioner that she did not belong to DFF category, she had given 'false' and/or 'misleading' information. Therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected. 17. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the UPPSC has relied on two decisions of learned single Judge of this Court in Vaishali Dwivedi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Ors., Writ - A No. 15413 of 2022 decided on 27.9.2022 and Satyendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Ors., Writ - A No. 3841 of 2023, decided on 17.3.2023. He has also relied on the full bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Patel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2015) 8 ADJ 219 (FB). 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, besides the undisputed facts as noted above, it would be relevant to extract the Clauses 2, 7(6), 11(7), 11(14), 11(18), 11(23), 11(30) of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line'. These clauses read as below : "2. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, besides the undisputed facts as noted above, it would be relevant to extract the Clauses 2, 7(6), 11(7), 11(14), 11(18), 11(23), 11(30) of the 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line'. These clauses read as below : "2. Modify Submitted Application: If a candidate comes to know about any error/errors in the submitted application form except in the name of exam and type of recruitment. Registered Mobile Number, E-mail ID, Aadhar Number and such cases where prescribed fee for modified category is higher (in case of error in these entries, candidate may submit new online application with prescribed fee only as previously deposited fee will neither be adjusted nor refunded) he/she will be given only one opportunity to modify it/them according to the following procedure before the last date of the submission of application form. 7(6): It is mandatory for the candidates to enclose self attested copies of all marksheets and certificates alongwith the application forms of Main (Written) Examination in support of the claims made by them in their application forms of Preliminary Examination regarding eligibility and category/sub-category for the benefit of reservation failing which their claim as a reserve category candidate shall not be entertained. 11(7): The candidates will have to enclose self attested copies of marksheets, certificates and degree alongwith the application form of main examination in support of their claims of Educational Qualifications. If they do not enclose self attested certificates/documents in support of their claims, the applications shall be rejected. 11(14): In every correspondence with the Commission, the name of Examination, Advertisement No. Registration No. Name of Candidate, Date of Birth & Roll No. (if communicated) Should be mentioned. 11(18): The claim of category, subcategory, domicile, gender, date of birth, name and address will be valid only till the last date of applying on line application. No change will be admissible after this. On submission of false/misleading information, the candidature will be cancelled. In this regard no application for error correction/modification shall be acceptable. Incomplete Application form shall be summarily rejected and no correspondence shall be entertained in this regard. No change will be admissible after this. On submission of false/misleading information, the candidature will be cancelled. In this regard no application for error correction/modification shall be acceptable. Incomplete Application form shall be summarily rejected and no correspondence shall be entertained in this regard. 11(23): The application/candidature will be rejected/cancelled if the application is not submitted on prescribed form, date of birth is not mentioned or wrong date of birth is mentioned, overage, under age, not fulfilling the minimum educational qualifications, applications received after last date and no signature under declaration in the format. 11(30): The candidates of reserved categories will be adjusted against the Unreserved Category in the final selection only if he/she will not avail any benefit/concession in qualifying standard at the state of Preliminary/Main/Screening Examination." 19. Also, relevant to the controversy at hand, the provision of General Instructions no.3 may also be taken note of, as below : "3. Those candidates, willing to take the benefit of the reservation/age relaxation must obtain a certificate, issued by the competent authority, in support of the reserved category, in the prescribed format printed in this detailed advertisement (Appendix-3) and submit the same to the Commission whenever required to do so. Those claiming more than one reservation/age relaxation will be given only one such concession, which will be more beneficial. The Candidates who are not originally domicile of Uttar Pradesh belonging to SC, ST, O.B.C. dependants of freedom fighters, Ex-Servicemen, Skilled Players, and Persons with Disabilities (Pwds) are not entitled to benefit of reservation/age relaxation. Such candidates will be treated as unreserved (General) candidates. In case of the women candidates, the caste certificate issued from father side will be treated valid." 20. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar, we find, under the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, there was no option to the petitioner, but to submit her original/first application through the online mode, to appear at the Preliminary Examination. In view of the language of Clause 2 of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', the petitioner was effectively prevented from seeking any change in her application form, after 10.1.2023. That being the last date to fill her application form, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner -based on Clause 11(14) does not impress us. That being the last date to fill her application form, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner -based on Clause 11(14) does not impress us. While the UPPSC may have allowed for physical correspondence to arise through offline mode, it may never be inferred therefrom, that the mandatory condition and the timeline with respect to amendment and correction in the original application form stood extended, by necessary implication. 21. Allowing a postal correspondence to arise, in no way granted or created any right to the applicant, to correct/change the details submitted on her original/first application, submitted earlier, electronically. In absence of any inherent or recognized right existing (as to that) after the cut-off date, the first submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit our acceptance. It is rejected. 22. Insofar as the second submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the scheme of the selection, as contained in the Advertisement, appears to be that the petitioner and the other candidates were allowed to appear at the Preliminary Examination on the strength of the self-disclosure made by them (in their applications submitted online), without verification made by the UPPSC, at that stage. That also appears to be the widely accepted mode at public examinations. These days, large number of candidates appear at public examinations, for a very few posts. Therefore, it does appear highly improbable and time consuming for the selection bodies to carry out due verification of all candidates, at the first stage of the selection process. It also allows the selection bodies access to higher fee collections. Thus, only after most of the candidates get screened out during the process of the Preliminary Examination, the more serious phase of the selection and verification is undertaken by UPPSC, through the Mains (Written) Examination and Interview/Viva Voce. Upon query made, the learned senior counsel for the UPPSC does not dispute this assumption. 23. Looked in that light, we first take note of Clause 7(6) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line'. It appears to suggest that the benefit of reservation under any category/sub-category would fail if the self-attested certificate forming the basis of such claim were not enclosed with the offline/second application form - to be submitted before the Mains (Written) Examination. It appears to suggest that the benefit of reservation under any category/sub-category would fail if the self-attested certificate forming the basis of such claim were not enclosed with the offline/second application form - to be submitted before the Mains (Written) Examination. Here, it is undisputed, the offline application was to be submitted only after qualifying at the Preliminary Examination i.e., at the stage of Mains (Written) Examination. 24. Thus, in the first place, a candidate who may have first claimed reservation under any category (in the form submitted online) and failed to enclose his self-attested category certificate (with his offline application), would lose his entitlement to his claim, as a reserved category candidate. There is no quarrel between the parties, the petitioner lost her claim as a DFF category candidate, for reason of having not enclosed her self-attested certificate to claim that benefit under that category of reservation, along with her offline application form. 25. Insofar as Clause 11(7) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line' is concerned, the same appears to apply solely to 'Educational Qualifications'. Though the said clause also uses the word 'certificate' in conjunction with the words 'marksheet and degree', at the same time, it qualifies the applicability of that Clause itself to 'Educational Qualifications'. Therefore, it is plain -under that Clause, failure to enclose 'such' self-attested certificates/documents would result in the application itself being rejected. Though mandatory without an exception, the said Clause applies qua 'Educational Qualifications', only. By no process of reasoning, it may ever be inferred, it would apply or be extended to reservation, also. 26. Then, coming to Clause 11(18), first, it clearly provides, no change of category/sub-category may be made by a candidate after the last date to file the original (first) application, submitted through online mode. To that also, there is no dispute or quarrel between the parties. Therefore, as noted above, the petitioner lost her right to change her category, after the last date to submit the application to appear at the Preliminary Examination. However, as to consequence, only in the event of 'false/misleading information' being provided, the candidature of such candidate may be cancelled. Therefore, meaning would have to be attributed to the words 'false' and 'misleading'. 27. Blacks Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines the words 'False' & 'Misleading' as below : "false, adj. (12c) 1. Untrue 2. Deceit-ful; lying 3. Not genuine; inauthentic. Therefore, meaning would have to be attributed to the words 'false' and 'misleading'. 27. Blacks Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition defines the words 'False' & 'Misleading' as below : "false, adj. (12c) 1. Untrue 2. Deceit-ful; lying 3. Not genuine; inauthentic. What is false can be so by intent, by accident, or by mistake." misleading, adj. (16c) (Of an instruction, direction, etc.) delusive; calculated to be misunderstood. [Cases: Fraud-13(1).}" 28. Clearly, used in conjunction -to cause the legal effect of disqualification at an open/public competitive examination, to a person otherwise qualified to participate at such examination. Since 'false/misleading information' must itself cause that disqualification, it must be such as may be intended to obtain a result/benefit that the informant i.e., the candidate must know from before, he was not entitled to. Unless that falsity is ascertained by the UPPSC and, unless that is the test applied, it would include within its sweep incomplete disclosures and innocent errors of perception as to one's status, without ever having the intent to take any benefit, of the same. In the context of the disqualification being set up against an aspirant/candidate i.e., the petitioner, since she did not file any certificate or document to claim DFF reservation, we are disinclined to give that wider meaning to the words 'false' and 'misleading' to include therein unproven or incomplete or wrong disclosures. 29. As to what may be construed as 'false', came to be considered, though in a different context arising under criminal jurisdiction, in Ravinder Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 245 . Yet, the same is relevant to our purpose since we are only looking to ascertain the dictionary meaning of word 'false'. That exercise has been undertaken by the Supreme Court in the above noted decision. Considering the meaning of word 'false', it was observed as below : "18. The dictionary meaning of word "false" means that, which is in essence incorrect, or purposefully untrue, deceitful, etc. Thus, the word "false" is used to cover only unlawful falsehood. It means something that is dishonest, untrue and deceitful, and implies an intention to perpetrate some treachery or fraud. In jurisprudence, the word "false" is used to characterise a wrongful or criminal act, done intentionally and knowingly, with knowledge, actual or constructive. The word "false" may also be used in a wide or narrower sense. It means something that is dishonest, untrue and deceitful, and implies an intention to perpetrate some treachery or fraud. In jurisprudence, the word "false" is used to characterise a wrongful or criminal act, done intentionally and knowingly, with knowledge, actual or constructive. The word "false" may also be used in a wide or narrower sense. When used in its wider sense, it means something that is untrue whether or not stated intentionally or knowingly, but when used in its narrower sense, it may cover only such falsehoods, which are intentional. The question whether in a particular enactment, the word "false" is used in a restricted sense or a wider sense, depends upon the context in which it is used. 19. In CST v. Sanjiv Fabrics [ (2010) 9 SCC 630 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1439], this Court, after relying upon certain legal dictionaries, explained that the word false describes an untruth, coupled with wrong intention or an intention to deceive. The Court further held that in case of criminal prosecution, where consequences are serious, findings of fact must be recorded with respect to mens rea in case of falsehood as a condition precedent for imposing any punishment." (emphasis supplied) 30. Again as to the word 'mislead', in another case arising under the criminal jurisdiction, in Ram Chandra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 1 SCC 562 , the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the meaning to be given to the word 'deceit'. In its concurring judgement, Justice R.M. Lodha (as he then was) reached a conclusion that any device or false representation by which one man may mislead another to his injury and fraudulent misrepresentations would have practiced deceit. Paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report read as under : "17. In its concurring judgement, Justice R.M. Lodha (as he then was) reached a conclusion that any device or false representation by which one man may mislead another to his injury and fraudulent misrepresentations would have practiced deceit. Paragraphs 17 & 18 of the report read as under : "17. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th Edn.) explains "deceit" as follows: "Deceit.—'"Deceit", deceptio, fraus, dolus, is a subtle, wily shift or device, having no other name; hereto may be drawn all manner of craft, subtilly, guile, fraud, wilinesse, slight, cunning, covin, collusion, practice, and offence used to deceive another man by any means, which hath none other proper or particular name but offence'." Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.) explains "deceit" thus: "Deceit, n.—(1) The act of intentionally giving a false impression In The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edn., Reprint 2000), "deceit" is described as follows: "Deceit.—Fraud; false representation made with intent to deceive; 'Deceit, "deception of fraud" is a subtle, wily shift or device, having no other name. In this may be included all manner of craft, subtlety, guile, fraud, wiliness, slight, cunning, covin, collusion, practice and offence used to deceive another may be by any means, which hath none other proper or particular name but offence'." 18. "Deceit", in the law, has a broad significance. Any device or false representation by which one man misleads another to his injury and fraudulent misrepresentations by which one man deceives another to the injury of the latter, are deceit. Deceit is a false statement of fact made by a person knowingly or recklessly with intent that it shall be acted upon by another who does act upon it and thereby suffers an injury. It is always a personal act and is intermediate when compared with fraud. Deceit is sort of a trick or contrivance to defraud another. It is an attempt to deceive and includes any declaration that misleads another or causes him to believe what is false." 31. Clearly, and without any doubt, in our context, 'false' and/or 'misleading' information would imply a deliberate, wrong statement made by the petitioner to claim benefit as a DFF candidate knowingly yet wrongly. By merely claiming that benefit without filling any certificate or basis, left the claim made incomplete or unsubstantiated. Such claim may, at most, be described as wrong, yet not false or misleading. 32. By merely claiming that benefit without filling any certificate or basis, left the claim made incomplete or unsubstantiated. Such claim may, at most, be described as wrong, yet not false or misleading. 32. By not supplying or substantiating the basis for her claim to DFF reservation (in the first/original application), the petitioner did not commit any positive and/or complete act as may ever allow any prudent person to reach a conclusion that that incomplete information was itself patently 'false/misleading', upon evaluating the inherent or intrinsic worth of that unsubstantiated claim. Per se, an incomplete or unsubstantiated claim may not involve element of 'false/misleading information'. It would not render the declaration made - 'false' and/or 'misleading', on the face of it. 33. Then, the UPPSC did not conduct any enquiry or verification exercise, to adjudge the otherwise incomplete and/or inaccurate claim made by the petitioner, false or misleading. Unless any false/misleading information was found to have been furnished by the petitioner (to claim reservation under the DFF category), and unless that satisfaction were reached by the UPPSC, on its own enquiry, it is not possible and/or permissible to reach any further conclusion that that declaration made by the petitioner was either 'false' and/or 'misleading', merely because the petitioner chose not to substantiate it at the stage of submitting her second application (through offline mode). 34. Thus, the UPPSC has neither discovered any inherent falsehood nor dishonest nor deceitful nor misleading conduct on part of the petitioner as may have exposed her to the harsh consequence of cancellation of her candidate under Clause 11(18) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line'. 35. Then, Clause 11(23) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line' also specifies certain conditions on which a candidature may be rejected/cancelled. Those are : "(i) submission of application on form other than prescribed form; (ii) date of birth being not mentioned in the application; (iii) mention of wrong date of birth; (iv) candidate being overage; (v) candidate being underage; (vi) not fulfilling the minimum educational qualifications; (viii) applications received after last date and; (ix) no signature on the advertisement form." 36. Thus, besides Clause 11(18) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', the UPPSC had thus chosen to specify other contingencies and circumstances in which the candidature of the candidate may be cancelled/rejected, out-rightly. Thus, besides Clause 11(18) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line', the UPPSC had thus chosen to specify other contingencies and circumstances in which the candidature of the candidate may be cancelled/rejected, out-rightly. A circumstance of incompleteness in the form with respect to reservation sought not being one of those conditions, it was not open to the UPPSC to contend, such condition was a part of the original Advertisement. The terms of the Advertisement had to be seen upon the plain language used therein. The terms of the Advertisement being elaborate -covering various contingencies providing for different consequences, it cannot be accepted that the candidature of the petitioner may have been cancelled for the event not specified or stipulated as one that may result in its cancellation. The language of the Advertisement that is the law between the parties, clearly works the other way, i.e., to infer, different consequences for different eventualities, with the harsh consequence of cancellation of the candidature being confined to pre-specified contingencies only. 37. In that light, it may also be noted, under Clause 11(30) of 'Necessary Information to Applicants for Filling Their Applications Through On-Line' and General Instruction no.3, UPPSC itself contemplates, a candidate who may have claimed reservation may be adjusted against Unreserved (General) category at the final selection only if such candidate may not have availed reservation at the stage of Preliminary/Mains (Written) Examination/Screening Examination. Thus, though the petitioner had lost her self-right to seek a change of category, yet, the UPPSC retained to itself a right, to consider her candidature, under the appropriate category. In the present case, the petitioner has not availed the DFF category at the stage of Preliminary Examination. As noted in the interim order itself, she qualified for the Mains (Written) Examination as an EWS category candidate but not as a DFF candidate. Therefore, the UPPSC may allow her to compete further, as an EWS candidate. 38. As to the decisions relied upon by respective learned counsel for the parties, in the full Bench decision of this Court - Gaurav Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Ors. (supra), a question had been framed : "A. Whether the candidature of an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date for submission of applications?" 39. (supra), a question had been framed : "A. Whether the candidature of an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date for submission of applications?" 39. While answering that question, full Bench observed as under : "Judging whether a particular candidate is entitled to the benefits of reservation or has rightly claimed as falling in the said category is an essential exercise liable to be undertaken. For the purposes of undertaking this exercise the selecting body must be in a position to adjudge for itself whether a particular candidate is entitled to the benefits and exemptions as claimed. If this were not read as being an inherent power in the selecting body, the process of selection itself may be completely derailed. While it is a true that a caste certificate is only a recognition of an existing status, as noted above, an OBC candidate necessarily must establish the twin conditions of belonging to a OBC group recognised by the State and also that he does not fall within the creamy layer. This requirement is liable to be judged with reference to a date prescribed in an advertisement. The certificate of OBC (non creamy layer) is issued with reference to the financial condition of the holder or his parents assessed over a period of three years. The financial condition of a holder is liable to change or fluctuate over a period of time. Viewed in this light it cannot be said that the requirement of submission of such a certificate by a particular date is not attracted to the case of an OBC candidate." 40. We do not find the dictum of the full Bench to be offering the answer to the question involved in the present case. 41. Insofar as the decisions of the learned single-Judge relied upon by learned senior counsel for UPSSC are concerned, clearly, they do not appear to take note of the second submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, in the present case. That we have considered above. Though terms and conditions of the Advertisement and even facts may have been similar, it would be dangerous to adopt that reasoning in the present case. Submissions advanced in the present petition have remained untested before the learned single Judge. Thus, those decisions of the learned single Judge may not persuade us. 42. That we have considered above. Though terms and conditions of the Advertisement and even facts may have been similar, it would be dangerous to adopt that reasoning in the present case. Submissions advanced in the present petition have remained untested before the learned single Judge. Thus, those decisions of the learned single Judge may not persuade us. 42. Without making any observation as to the correctness or otherwise of those decisions of the learned single Judge, for reason of different arguments advanced and, upon consideration of those advanced in the present case, we find, the petitioner did not lose her eligibility to participate further, pursuant to the Advertisement, consequent to her not filing prescribed certificate to claim DFF reservation. 43. The stipulation allowing for rejection of the candidature in the event of an incomplete claim of reservation was first introduced vide Notification dated 24.3.2023. It reads as below : ^^vH;FkhZ }kjk Á'uxr p;u gsrq ÁkjfEHkd ijh{kk ds vkuykÃu vkosnu esa Js.kh@miJs.kh@vgZrk vkfn ds lEcU/k esa fd;s x;s nkos ds leFkZu esa vius leLr vfHkys[k eq[; ijh{kk ds vkosnu ds lkFk vo'; layXu djsa vU;Fkk mudk vH;FkZu Lor% fujLr ekuk tk;sxkA** 44. Undisputedly, that condition was changed not only mid-way but after declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination. 45. We are unable to accept the objection being raised by the learned senior counsel for the UPPSC on the strength of Notification dated 24.3.2023. The effect of Notification is not to improve the standard of the selection. It is not to pick the best over the lesser in order of merit. It seeks to completely exclude the petitioner from the zone of consideration, midway through the selection process. 46. In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 , the Supreme Court had laid down a rule against change to the rules of selection, while that selection was underway. It held : "11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature". (emphasis supplied) 47. Then, in Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corpn. & Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 51 , the Supreme Court further observed : "the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced." 48. That ratio was applied by a three-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 . Paragraphs nos. That ratio was applied by a three-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 . Paragraphs nos. 32 and 33 of that report read as below : "32. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [ (2001) 10 SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] this Court observed that "the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced". In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game had been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible. 33. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview." 49. Later, in T.N. Computer SC B.Ed. Govt. Welfare Society (1) Vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Assn., (2009) 14 SCC 517 , another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court again had the occasion to consider that issue. Later, in T.N. Computer SC B.Ed. Govt. Welfare Society (1) Vs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Assn., (2009) 14 SCC 517 , another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court again had the occasion to consider that issue. It was then observed : "33. We, however, cannot hold that the subsequent decision of the Government thereby changing qualifying norms by reducing the minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35% after the holding of the examination and at the time when the result of the examination was to be announced and thereby changing the said criteria at the verge of and towards the end of the game as justified, for we find the same as arbitrary and unjustified. This Court in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [ (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203] has held that in recruitment process changing rules of the game during selection process or when it is over are not permissible". 50. Later, a doubt arose before another three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 540 , as to whether the above principle prohibiting any change to the "rules of game" could be applied to a change to the procedure to be followed at an ongoing selection. In that case, the requirement to achieve 75% marks in the competitive examination was introduced after the advertisement and that procedural requirement was not known to the candidates, under the original advertisement. That reference appears to be still pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. 51. Pending that reference, recently, in Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2020) 20 SCC 209 , a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court again had the occasion to consider the enforceability of an amendment to the selection process, made midway through the selection. After considering the scope and pendency of the reference in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Supreme Court observed : "53. After considering the scope and pendency of the reference in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Supreme Court observed : "53. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that judgments of this Court laying down the criteria for selection cannot be changed during the course of selection has been referred to a larger Bench by a judgment of this Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 540 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 353, hence the judgment of this Court laying down the criteria cannot be changed during the course of the selection is yet to be tested. For the purposes of the present case we proceed on the assumption that even if the criteria can be changed by selecting body from time to time, the said change cannot be affected arbitrarily. The present is a case where change in criteria has been affected and altered arbitrarily with the object of downgrading and not upgrading the standards of selection. The High Court did not commit any error in not upholding the change of criteria effected after start of selection process with which finding we fully concur". 52. It is that line of reasoning and distinction that has again been adopted and applied in the most recent decision of the Supreme Court, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, in Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel (supra). 53. Here as well, the change of procedure to select has been changed not only abruptly but arbitrarily. Having first given out to the candidates (through the Advertisement), that their candidature would not be cancelled occasioned by incomplete claim as to reservation, the UPPSC could not have turned around to reject such candidature of the petitioner, after she had acted in accordance with the terms of the Advertisement. Plainly, the change made serves no purpose. The petitioner being qualified as an EWS candidate, she continues to be eligible to participate further, in the selection process. The change made to the selection process has not been shown to have any intrinsic purpose or nexus to the object of selecting the best amongst the eligible. 54. Moreover, since the present is not a case of change of procedural requirements but one of change to the substantive requirements of selection, introduced mid-way through the selection process, we find no impediment existing by virtue of the pending reference (to the larger bench), at the Supreme Court. 54. Moreover, since the present is not a case of change of procedural requirements but one of change to the substantive requirements of selection, introduced mid-way through the selection process, we find no impediment existing by virtue of the pending reference (to the larger bench), at the Supreme Court. 55. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned communications dated 29.04.2023 and 10.05.2023 are found to have been issued contrary to the law. They are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the ongoing selection process as an EWS candidate. Let result of the petitioner for the Mains (Written) Examination be declared, along with the other candidates. No order as to costs.