ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the memo dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P/4) by which the petitioner’s appointment on the post of physical teacher has been rejected on the count that caste certificate dated 30.12.2019 which is after 21.11.2019 i.e. the date of declaration of the result of the examination conducted by the respondent No.5. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that School Education Department issued an advertisement on 09.03.2019 for appointment of various posts like lecturer, teachers (E and T-cadre), Assistant Teacher (E and T cadre), teacher English medium, Assistant Teacher Science Laboratory, Teacher (Physical Education). It is contended that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (Physical Education) and his name has been included in the select list at serial No 3. The Respondent initiated proceedings of verification of the documents of selected candidates; accordingly the petitioner was directed to appear for verification of the document on 10.05.2022. The Joint Director vide its memo dated held petitioner to be ineligible on the count that caste certificate of the petitioner is dated 30.12.2019 which is after the date of declaration of result on 21.11.2019. Hence, this petition has been filed for quashing of Annexure P/1 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Teacher (Physical Education) with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was selected in the exam and his name finds place at serial No. 3 as reflected from Annexure P/2 and would submit that respondent No. 4 by wrong applying the provisions has rejected the candidature of the petitioner therefore, he has filed WPS No. 4316 of 2022 before this Court wherein this Court has passed the following order which is as under:- After considering on these submissions, the petition is disposed off. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation within a time limit of 10 days, before respondents No. 3 who shall inturn consider on the same and take decision at the earliest, within a further time limit of 21 days from the date the copy of this order is received along-with the representation by taking cognizance of judgments Charles K. Skaria & Others versus Dr. C. Mathew & Others (supra) and Dolly Chanda Vs. Chairman JEE (supra). C. Mathew & Others (supra) and Dolly Chanda Vs. Chairman JEE (supra). This Court has not made any observation on the merits of this case in this order until then the requirement procedure shall not be finalized. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has applied for caste certificate before Sub Divisional Officer Dondilohara on 27.02.2019 which was prior to date of issuance of advertisement as it was issued on 09.03.2019 thereafter the certificate was issued on 30.12.2019 as such he should not suffer because of the illegality committed by the caste certificate issuing authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. They would further submit that the petitioner has been selected on the basis of education qualification which he holds and not on the basis of caste certificate thus, having belated caste certificate does not dis-entitled the petitioner to be appointed. He would further submit that the approach adopted by the authorities is unrealistic, unjust and subversive of purpose thus the Annexure P/4 deserves to be quashed. To substantiate their submissions they would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhandra vs. Chairman JEE and others 2005(9) SCC 779 and would refer to the paragraph 7 which is as under:- 7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 5. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 5. On 03.05.2024 the matter was listed before this Court on that date, the State was directed to clarify what is the significance of the dated 21.11.2019 and they will also clarify that if the caste certificate is subsequently issued, can it be ground to deny the employment to the petitioner. State was also directed by this Court to examine the effect of Section 9 of Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act 2013 and Rules made therein which provides that benefit secured on the basis of false social status certificate is to be withdrawn. The State was also directed to clarify since this right of the State was protected by virtue of this Section whether the State action to deny appointment to the petitioner was justified or not. 6. The State has filed the return wherein in paragraph 5 it has been mentioned that in the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 it has clarely mentioned in para-8 sub para-7 that the candidates who are appearing for the aforesaid examination should appear before the competent authority on the date of result declaration or before it along with all the relevant documents whereas after declaration of result if any certificate was produce by the candidates will not be taken into consideration. Learned State counsel would submit that as per the qualification all other certificate should be given prior to the date of publication of the result and the result was declared on 21.11.2019 whereas caste certificate was issued on 30.12.2019 after date of publication of the result therefore, it cannot be said that the action taken by the State is illegal or unjustified and warrants interference by this Court. Learned State counsel would further submit that the certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer has lost its significance and cannot be considered for issuing the appointment order in favour of the petitioner. Learned State counsel would further submit that the certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer has lost its significance and cannot be considered for issuing the appointment order in favour of the petitioner. To substantiate her submissions, she would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya vs. Union of India and others (2024)1 SCC 448 . She would refer to paragraph 86 of the judgement which reads as under:- 86. The rules clearly mandate and as has been held in the case of Gaurav Singh (supra), any mistake/omission/ negligence cannot be condoned so as to extend the deadline for production of the documents. Neither the Office Memorandum nor the rules in question can be construed as directory. They prescribe clearly the eligibility criterion and the date before which the certificate should be possessed and the date before which the certificate should be submitted. They also prescribe the consequence for the omission. As the old ditty goes for a want of a horseshoe nail, kingdoms have been lost. Here we are dealing with crucial documents determining eligibility. The petitioners who did not possess the valid documentation determining their eligibility, before the prescribed cut-off date, cannot complain, if their claim for categorization as EWS was rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the result which was declared on 21.11.2019 is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that petitioner has applied for caste certificate on 27.02.2019 which was not given to the petitioner till the result was declared, as such no fault of the petitioner exists, as such, denial of appointment is illegal and would pray for allowing of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the above stated factual matrix the point to be determined by this Court is whether action on the part of the respondent in not granting candidature of the petitioner on the count that the caste certificate was issued subsequent to the date of publication of the result but was available at the time of counseling with the petitioner. 10. The whole controversy moves around the caste certificate, therefore, it is expedient for this Court to explore the law made by the State with regard to issuance of caste certificate to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes. 10. The whole controversy moves around the caste certificate, therefore, it is expedient for this Court to explore the law made by the State with regard to issuance of caste certificate to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes. The State of Chhattisgarh has framed the Act known as the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes (Regulation of Social, Status Certification)Act, 2013. Section 3 provides issuance of social caste certificate, Section 8 deals with cancelation and confiscation of false social status certificate, Section 19 of the Act empowered the State Government to make rules to carry out all or any of the purpose of the Act. In pursuance of power conferred under Section 19 the State Government has framed Rules known as Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes (Regulation of Social, Status Certification), Rules, 2013. Rule 3- provides application for issuance of certificate, Rule 4- Registration of Application, Rule 5 – Preliminary Inquiry of the application, receipt and return memo, Rule 6- provide Inablity memo. Rule 7- provide Inquiry Officer. Rule 8- provide Inquiry. Rule 9- provide Social Status Certification. This rules provide that the competent authority after receiving application will issue the caste certificate within one month. The relevant Rule is reproduced below.:- “Competent Authority after receiving application under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 and conducting an inquiry under Rule 8 and in case where himself is not an inquiry officer after satisfying himself with the annexed document and Report of the Inquiry Officer within one month from the date of receipt of application shall issue the certificate in Form 4A(1) to the applicant of Scheduled Castes, in Form 4A(2) to the applicant of Scheduled Tribes and in Form 4A(3) to the applicant of Other Backward Classes. 11. From perusal of the Rules , 2013 it is quite vivid that within 30 days from the date of submission of the application, the Sub Divisional Officer should have issued the caste certificate which was not issued till 30.12.2019 therefore, it cannot be said that there is default on the part of the petitioner. Even Section 9 of the Act, 2013 provides that if the caste certificate is found to be forged the candidature of the petitioner can be very well turn down. Even Section 9 of the Act, 2013 provides that if the caste certificate is found to be forged the candidature of the petitioner can be very well turn down. Since the sufficient safeguard have been framed in the Act and the Rules cast duty upon the authorities to decide the application of the caste certificate within one months from the date of submission, as such the petitioner cannot be held liable for lapses committed by the competent authority in not issuing the caste certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dolly Chhanda (supra) has held that depending upon the facts of the case there can be some relaxation in the matter of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. More particularly when at the time of counseling the petitioner was having caste certificate in his favour, as such, denial of appointment on the post of physical teacher vide Annexure P/4 deserves to be set aside. The judgment referred to by the State in case of Diviya (supra) is distinguishable on the fact as in case of Diviya (supra) the petitioners were denied the benefit of reservation under EWS category on the count that as per the policy a candidates at CSE 2022 is eligible to get benefit of EWS only in case the candidate meets the criteria issued by the Central Government and is in possession of requisite income and assets certificates and the applicable date for possession of the certificate in this case is 22.02.2022 and as per Rule 13 of CSE 2022, the uploading of the certificates happens only after the declaration of the results of the Preliminary Examination and before the Main Examination is held. For the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit an on-line Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I) along with scanned documents/certificates in support of the claim for EWS category within the prescribed time. For the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit an on-line Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I) along with scanned documents/certificates in support of the claim for EWS category within the prescribed time. The rules further provide any delay in submission of the DAF-I or documents in support beyond the prescribed date was not to be allowed and would lead to cancellation of the candidature whereas in the present case the document is to be verified at the time of counseling and at that time the petitioner was having the requisite documents, as such, Annexure P/4 deserves to quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. 12. The State is directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to get any seniority or other service benefit till he joins the services. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part.