ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant intra court appeal, which is delayed by 39 days, is preferred by the appellant writ petitioner for assailing the order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, the writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to treat the appellant as an OBC (Female) Divorcee category candidate and to consider her claim for selection on the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade with all consequential benefits, was dismissed. 2. The appellant writ petitioner applied for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade in the category of OBC (Non- Creamylayer) Divorcee category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.06.2021 issued by Directorate, Ayurveda Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer. She was called for document verification, however, her name did not figure in the provisional merit list of the Unreserved category candidates/OBC (NCL) category candidates. She filed an objection to the respondents stating inter alia that candidate having obtained 45.08% marks had been selected in the category of OBC (NCL) Divorcees whereas the name of the appellant writ petitioner having obtained 47.90% marks was not reflected in the select list. However, the objection was not considered favourably. In this background, the writ petition came to be filed seeking a direction upon the respondents for including the name of the appellant writ petitioner in the select list. The writ petition was rejected by learned Single Bench vide order dated 23.02.2022 which is assailed in this intra court appeal. 3. Learned counsel Shri Swami representing the appellant writ petitioner submits that the certificates dated 15.12.2017 and 02.08.2021 were submitted by the appellant petitioner, who was a divorcee, indicating her status as OBC (NCL) category and hence, the respondents were under an obligation to consider her candidature in the said category. He submits that the learned Single Judge erred in affirming decision of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner in the said category for the reason that the certificates produced by the appellant petitioner were not compliant of the condition contained in the recruitment notification that the OBC (NCL) certificate issued after the cut-off date will not taken into consideration. He drew the Court's attention to the circular dated 17.10.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan which reads as below: ^^bl foHkkx }kjk lela[;d ifji= dzekad ia- 7¼1½ dkfeZd@d&2@2019 fnukad 20-01-2022 esa fuEukuqlkj tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk%& ^^jkT; ljdkj dh v/khu inksa dh HkrhZ ds fy, lHkh lsok fu;eksa esa vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNMk oxZ] vfr fiNMk oxZ ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, vkj{k.k dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gSA dsUnz ,oa jkT; ds v/khu inksa dh HkfrZ;ksa esa vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr djus gsrq vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lacaf/kr Js.kh ds izek.k&i= dh vko';drk gksrh gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij vH;FkhZ dh Js.kh dh ik=rk dk ewY;kadu fd;k tkrk gSA vH;fFkZ;ksa dks muds oxZ ds vkj{k.k dk ykHk] izek.k&i= tkjh gksus dh fnukad ls ns; gksrk gS vkSj vH;FkhZ ds ikl l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh izek.k&i=] vkosnu Hkjus dh vfUre frfFk ls iwoZ dk gksuk vko';d gSA vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk/kkfjr izek.k&i= vkosnu Hkjus dh vfUre frfFk ls iwoZ dk gksuk pkfg;s] rkfd HkrhZ izfdz;k izkjEHk gksus ds i'pkr vkjf{kr Js.kh dk ykHk nsus ds laca/k esa izek.k&i= dh frfFk ds vk/kkj ij fookn u gksA** mDr ifji= ds vUr esa fuEu ijUrqd tksMk tkrk gS%& ^^;fn fdUgha dkj.kksa ls vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk ,d tkjh izek.k&i= izLrqr ugha fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vfUre frfFk ds i'pkr tkjh fd;k gqvk izek.k&i= izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls vH;FkhZ ls bl vk'k; dk ,d 'kiFk&i= fy[kk tkosa fd og vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk dks lacaf/kr oxZ dh ik=rk j[krk Fkk rFkk ;g lwpuk xyr ik;s tkus ij mldh fu;qfDr fujLr dh tk ldsxhA** vr% lHkh lacaf/kr dks mDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA** and submitted that even if, a candidate is not able to present a certificate issued by the cut-off date in terms of the recruitment notification then too, a subsequently obtained certificate is to be considered valid if it is supported by an affidavit. He thus urged that in terms of the above circular, the requirement of having the OBC (NCL) certificate issued by the cut-off date mentioned in the recruitment notification is no longer mandatory and certificate issued after the cut off date has to be considered valid upon the candidate concerned filing an affidavit in support of the fact that he/she continues to be in the Non-Creamylayer category for the relevant period. 4. 4. Per contra, Shri Anil Kumar Gaur, learned AAG opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that it is not in dispute that the appellant procured 47.90% marks in the recruitment process whereas the cut-off for the OBC (Divorcee) category was much higher. He further submitted that admittedly, the appellant did not possess the OBC (NCL) certificate issued prior to the cut-off date as mentioned in the recruitment notification and hence, her candidature could not be considered in the OBC (NCL) Divorcee category. Regarding the circular dated 17.10.2022, the contention of Shri Gaur was that the effect of this notification is not retrospective and it has to be applied prospectively. Since the recruitment notification was issued much prior to the date of issuance of the above circular, the same does not, in any manner, benefit the appellant writ petitioner. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 6. The issue that an aspirant for a Government post in the OBC (NCL) reserved category must be possessed of a valid OBC (NCL) certificate issued by the last date of submission of the application form is no longer res-integra as has been held by this Court in the case of Jyoti Beniwal v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11784/2022) decided on 18.08.2022. Thus, the respondents were perfectly justified in not considering the appellant writ petitioner for selection in the said category in the subject recruitment process because admittedly, one of the certificates which she submitted was issued more than three years prior and the other after the cut-off date mentioned in the recruitment notification. 7. The amendment dated 17.10.2022 introduced in the circular dated 20.01.2022, which has been reproduced herein above, cannot be considered having a retrospective effect because under this amendment, a decision has been taken by the State Government to accept the certificates issued to the candidate of respective category after the cut off date subject to the filing of an affidavit. On the face of it, this amended notification is prospective in nature because if applied retrospectively, it would create chaos and uncertainty in concluded/ongoing recruitment processes. On the face of it, this amended notification is prospective in nature because if applied retrospectively, it would create chaos and uncertainty in concluded/ongoing recruitment processes. We have no hesitation in holding that the clear/unambiguous language of the circular makes its effect prospective and hence, the prayer of the appellant to apply it retrospectively to her advantage, is not acceptable. Thus, the appellant petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the strength of the circular dated 17.10.2022. The impugned order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference therein. 8. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as being delayed and so also on merits.