ORDER : 1. Grievance of the petitioner herein, a specially abled lady, having more than 50% of locomotive disability, caused by a childhood Arthritis owing to which one of her legs is dysfunctional, arises out rejection of her candidature in the physically handicapped category for the post of Homeopathy Medical Officer to be filled as per advertisement dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure-1). 2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the petition. 2.1 The Respondents issued an advertisement dated 05.07.2023, bearing no. 03/2023, for the appointment of Homeopathy Medical Officers through a direct recruitment process. A total of 15 posts were reserved for physically handicapped (PH) persons. The petitioner participated in the aforementioned vacancy under the PH/Specially Abled Category, submitting all requisite documents. 2.2. Subsequently, she was called for document verification, scheduled from 07.08.2023 to 16.08.2023. The Respondents had released a list, inviting candidates for document verification based on merit. The petitioner succeeded in securing a position on the merit list of successful candidates for the above-said post. 2.3. Petitioner was scheduled for document verification on 10.08.2023. She stated in writing that her registration certificate from Rajasthan Homeopathy Council would be provided before the last date of document verification i.e. 16.08.2023. And indeed, it was submitted by her on 14.08.2023. 2.4. It is an admitted fact that the document verification process commenced on 07.08.2023 and concluded on 16.08.2023. Notably, before the completion of the document verification process, the petitioner had already submitted her registration certificate on 11.08.2023. The registration certificate was duly received by Respondent No. 3. 2.5. However, when the provisional merit list was issued, the petitioner's name was omitted solely on the ground that she did not submit her registration certificate on 10.08.2023, when she appeared for her documents verification. A candidate less meritorious than her was included in the provisional merit list. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In the return filed to the writ petition the stand taken is that that the certificate of registration issued by Rajasthan State Board of Homeopathy Medicine was issued on 11.08.2023 to the petitioner and the last date for submission of the same was same as that of the application form i.e. 24.07.2023. It is thus clear that the petitioner, as on the date of submitting her application form, did not have the qualification of registration. It is thus clear that the petitioner, as on the date of submitting her application form, did not have the qualification of registration. Therefore, the registration certificate being the necessary qualification, having been obtained after the cut off date, candidature of petitioner cannot be entertained. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsels appearing for respective parties which are on the same lines as the stand taken in respective pleadings and shall now proceed to render my opinion on the same and record reasons thereof. 5. First and foremost, let us see as to what is the cut off date as per the advertisement (Annexure-1) for submitting documents for verification. Reference may be had to clause 1 which governs the educational qualifications of a candidate. The same clearly states that a Bachelor degree in Homeopathy from a University established by law in India or equivalent and recognized under Rajasthan Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1969 is the requisite qualification. The “Note” given underneath the educational qualification also states that a candidate though must be registered with the Rajasthan Homeopathy Medicine Board, but the registration certificate has to be produced at the time of document verification round. Thus while the cut off date for having the educational qualifications is last date of submitting application form i.e. 24.07.2023, but it is noteworthy that for the purpose of submitting registration certificate with the Homeopathy Medicine Board, the cut off date is floating in nature i.e. during the document verification round which commenced with effect from 07.08.2023 and lasted till 16.08.2023. 6. Petitioner’s case essentially pivots on following two grounds:- a). She possessed the necessary degree and qualifications as of the cut-off date, i.e., 24.07.2023, as stated in the advertisement. b). The advertisement explicitly states that a candidate with the requisite degree must also be registered with the Rajasthan Homeopathy Medicine Board. A certificate serving as proof thereof must be produced during the verification of documents. 7. Without further ado, let us first examine the document verification schedule provided to eligible candidates in Annexure-5 (which is undisputed). A perusal thereof reveals that document verification was concededly scheduled from 07.08.2023 to 16.08.2023. The petitioner, listed at serial No. 260, was invited for document verification on 10.08.2023. On that date, she submitted a letter/certificate dated 08.08.2023 issued by the Rajasthan Homeopathy Board. A perusal thereof reveals that document verification was concededly scheduled from 07.08.2023 to 16.08.2023. The petitioner, listed at serial No. 260, was invited for document verification on 10.08.2023. On that date, she submitted a letter/certificate dated 08.08.2023 issued by the Rajasthan Homeopathy Board. This certificate affirmed her prior registration with the UP Board and her current pending application for registration under the Rajasthan Medical Board. 8. However, neither on commencement of the document verification round i.e. 07.08.2023 nor on the day when the petitioner appeared for the same i.e. 10.08.2023, she was able to produce the required registration certificate. Despite her request for a brief accommodation to provide the certificate within the document verification period (which extended until 16.08.2023), she was deemed ineligible because she could not produce it on the specific date, i.e., 10.08.2023. To the say the least, this conduct of recruitment agency is contrary to the advertisement, which clearly stated that the requisite certificate could be produced during the document verification period i.e. beginning from 07.08.2023 and concluding on 16.08.2023. 9. As it happened, the petitioner was granted her registration certificate on 11.08.2023 and she promptly submitted it before the conclusion of the documents verification round. Despite this, her certificate was rejected on the pretext that she did not produce it on 10.08.2023. I find this approach by the respondents not only excessively pedantic, but also indicative of an unwarranted insistence on technicalities. Given their prior communication that document verification would extend until 16.08.2023, they ought not to have rejected the petitioner's certificate, which is otherwise undisputed. On that ground alone, the rejection of the petitioner's candidacy by the respondents is held to be invalid. 10. Pertinently, the advertisement clearly specifies that eligibility is determined based on qualifications i.e. academic qualifications. The registration of the certificate with Homeopathy Board of the state does not necessitate any additional examinations, entrance tests, or interviews. Therefore, registering after becoming a Homeopathy graduate should not be treated as an additional qualification but rather as a mere technical formality. The registration certificate cannot possibly be treated as a qualification. Furthermore, to prevent unnecessary litigation, in future, a suggested amendment to the advertisement ought to be carried out, which should ordinarily include a clause stating that appointments will be provisional subject to the candidates producing the required registration certificate within a specified timeframe of issuance of appointment letter. The registration certificate cannot possibly be treated as a qualification. Furthermore, to prevent unnecessary litigation, in future, a suggested amendment to the advertisement ought to be carried out, which should ordinarily include a clause stating that appointments will be provisional subject to the candidates producing the required registration certificate within a specified timeframe of issuance of appointment letter. Failure to do so, would render their appointment invalid, and the opportunity would then be extended to the next meritorious candidate. This would avoid causing unnecessary distress to more meritorious candidates solely on technical grounds. 11. I may hasten to add here in case defense of respondents is to be upheld the same would also result in an incongruous situation where cut off date for producing documents will vary from candidate to candidate depending upon when they are called for verification of the same. Each documents verification day will then be cut off for some, while other would get undue advantage of being called later. As already stated, the advertisement clearly states that the eligibility is to be reckoned as per the qualifications, which appears to be the academic qualifications. 12. Reference may also be had to an earlier judgment of mine, which I had an occasion to render as a puisne judge in Punjab and Haryana High Court, dated 28.01.2022 titled as (Seema Vs. State of Haryana & Ors) in Civil Writ Petition No. 16902/2020. Relevant paras thereof are reproduced herein below-: “7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner completed her compulsory rotatory internship under the Indian Medical Council Act before she had applied in pursuance to the advertisement. After the internship, Haryana Medical Council had issued provisional certificate of registration on 26.03.2019 to the petitioner on her successfully qualifying MBBS examination on 27.12.2018. Issuance of provisional certificate to the petitioner vide no. P-9934 dated 26.03.2019 is not disputed. This registration certificate, no doubt, bears a recital that it is only valid for completion of internship for one year from the date of passing of MBBS examination and will not be used for any other purpose. However, no statutory provision has been brought to the notice of the court for any such restriction/prohibition on its use. This registration certificate, no doubt, bears a recital that it is only valid for completion of internship for one year from the date of passing of MBBS examination and will not be used for any other purpose. However, no statutory provision has been brought to the notice of the court for any such restriction/prohibition on its use. Being so, the certificate (annexure P/2) of the petitioner’s registration on 26.03.2019 with the Haryana medical council seems sufficient for her eligibility as on the cut-off date i.e. 22.01.2020 to apply for the post in question. 8. As stated, the cut-off date of application for the post was 22.01.2020. The petitioner had applied to Delhi Medical council for the registration certificate five days prior thereto. In ordinary course, one is unable to comprehend as to why should the Medical Council sit over the application for grant of the registration when it simply appears to be a mere formality. Neither any merit of the candidate is to be determined before grant of such a certificate nor even otherwise the registration is an additional qualification of any kind which requires scrutiny of the candidate by the Council. In fact, the registration is granted more or less as a matter of right, that too ex-parte, merely by going through the contents of the application for registration form along with the requisite documents appended therewith. In fact, looking at the procedure and the manner in which the registration is granted, it rather seems fair and equitable to opine that once, the registration is accorded, for the purpose of determining eligibility to apply for the post of Medical Officer, it should enure from the date of the application itself and the mere formality of the date which is put on the certificate, is simply to be read as date of issuance of the certificate but in reality, effective from the date of applying under the requisite proforma of the application. In any case the petitioner should not suffer for the procedural delay on the part of the Medical Council in the grant of registration. 9. In a judgment rendered in CWP-9429-2020, speaking for this Court, my learned brother Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. has been held as below :- “17. In any case the petitioner should not suffer for the procedural delay on the part of the Medical Council in the grant of registration. 9. In a judgment rendered in CWP-9429-2020, speaking for this Court, my learned brother Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. has been held as below :- “17. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that as per section 15 of the 1956 Act, only a person who has been registered with the State Medical Council, is entitled to hold the office of a physician or a 0surgeon in a Government Institution or any other Institution maintained by the local body or other authority. Further, it is clear from Section 25(4) of the 1956 Act that a person who has already been registered provisionally, on completing the training, shall be entitled for the registration in the State Medical Register under Section 15 meaning thereby that once a person has already been granted provisional registration, on completion of the training, a right accrues in the candidate for the registration in the State Medical Register without there being any other formality to be completed except for the request for the grant of Permanent Registration. 18. In the present case, it is a conceded position that the Government of Haryana had already given the petitioner the provisional registration on 11.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) in pursuance to which the petitioner had completed her training/internship on 06.01.2020 and upon the completion of the internship, the petitioner had applied for registration with the Delhi Medical Council immediately on the very next date i.e.07.01.2020. Once the word used in section 25 (4) of the 1956 Act is 'shall', it denotes that the petitioner had right to seek the permanent registration on the basis of the provisional registration already granted in her favour. That being so, the delay in acknowledging the right by the Delhi Medical Council despite her application dated 07.01.2020, cannot defeat the claim of the petitioner as the delay in releasing the certificate in favour of the petitioner by the Delhi Medical Council was beyond the control of the petitioner. 19 & 20. Xxx xxx xxx 21. That being so, the delay in acknowledging the right by the Delhi Medical Council despite her application dated 07.01.2020, cannot defeat the claim of the petitioner as the delay in releasing the certificate in favour of the petitioner by the Delhi Medical Council was beyond the control of the petitioner. 19 & 20. Xxx xxx xxx 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not been able to distinguish the applicability of the law cited here-in-before in the case of the present petitioner as, the petitioner had also applied for the grant of registration with the Delhi Medical Council on 07.01.2020, which is much prior to the last date of filing the application form for consideration for appointment to the post of Medical Officer and it was only the Delhi Medical Board, despite petitioner being eligible in all respects, issued the certificate on 12.02.2020, which was beyond the control of the petitioner and hence, she cannot be punished for the delay on the part of the authorities in issuing the certificate within the timeframe. 22. Further, it is also a conceded position that the actual selection process started with the holding of the written examination on 01.03.2020and by the said date, the petitioner had already got the registration certificate even from the Delhi Medical Council. Coupled with the fact that the petitioner was allowed to undergo the complete selection process and being within merit qua the posts of Medical Officer to be filled up, now declaring her ineligible to be appointed against one of the 642 posts despite being higher in merit, will be too harsh upon the petitioner especially at the threshold of her career.” 10. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken as above. 11. The case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing except for the minor difference that the petitioner herein had applied for certificate five days prior to the cut-off date and in the judgment ibid, the certificate was applied ten days prior to the cut-off date. In any case, in view of my opinion that once the certificate is granted, the same should enure with effect from the date of application and not from the date of issuance. It is irrelevant as to when was the same was applied for as long as it was applied before the cut-off date. In any case, in view of my opinion that once the certificate is granted, the same should enure with effect from the date of application and not from the date of issuance. It is irrelevant as to when was the same was applied for as long as it was applied before the cut-off date. That apart, as observed above, certificate annexure P/2 for the petitioner’s registration on 26.03.2019 with Haryana medical council seems sufficient for eligibility as on the cut-off date to apply for the post in question.” 13. Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, relies on a judgment rendered in case titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Zaiba & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 252/2019). He urges that in a similar situation a candidate who did not have the registration certificate of the Medical Board was held ineligible by the Division Bench, notwithstanding that the learned Single Judge had allowed his petition. 14. I have perused the judgment and am of the view that reliance on the same is misplaced by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the said judgment, the certificate was produced after the last date had gone past as per the advertisement. In the present case, as I have observed hereinabove, cut-off date to produce requisite registration certificate was during the prescribed dates of documents verification round. Documents verification was to conclude on 16.08.2023 and the petitioner concededly produced the said certificate on 11.08.2023. 15. As an upshot of my discussion in the preceding part, the petition is allowed. Consequently, respondents are directed to consider the candidature of petitioner in the physically handicapped category. If otherwise found meritorious, petitioner shall be offered appointment on the post in question, with effect from the date as the other successful candidates who applied pursuant to the same advertisement.