Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. 2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the final result so far as the same relates to the petitioner published by Bihar Public Service Commission of 60th, 61st and 62nd Combined Joint Competitive Examination dated 01.02.2019 whereby the result of the petitioner, who passed successfully in preliminary and main examination, has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not get verified her Creamy Layer Certificate with its original and, therefore, her candidature was considered into general category. As the petitioner did not obtain minimum cut-off marks of general category, he was not selected in the final result of the Bihar Public Service Commission. Further prayer has been made that case of the petitioner be considered in the successful candidate treating the petitioner as E.B.C. (non-creamy layer) candidate and direction be given to the respondent to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post treating her a candidate belonging to E.B.C. (Female) candidate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the 60th, 61st and 62nd Combined Joint Competitive (Preliminary/Mains) Examination. The petitioner belongs to the Extremely Backward Class female (non-creamy layer). Counsel submits that the petitioner downloaded the advertisement dated 15.09.2016 from the website of Bihar Public Service Commission and pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner applied on 04.10.2016 online as a candidate of reserved category under E.B.C. Code-04. After submission of form, the Bihar Public Service Commission has issued admit card and her preliminary test was scheduled to be held on 12.02.2017. The petitioner appeared in preliminary test on scheduled date and became successful candidate. The Bihar Public Service Commission invited online application from the successful candidates of preliminary test and the petitioner again applied online. The petitioner appeared in the mains examination and again declared successful. The Bihar Public Service Commission issued interview letter to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the interview, but at the time of interview verification of certificates has been made and it has been found that E.B.C. certificate is not containing the noncreamy layer part and, therefore, her E.B.C. certificate was declared invalid. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission issued interview letter to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the interview, but at the time of interview verification of certificates has been made and it has been found that E.B.C. certificate is not containing the noncreamy layer part and, therefore, her E.B.C. certificate was declared invalid. 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted an application to the Examination Controller, B.P.S.C., Patna, praying therein to grant her some time to produce non-creamy layer certificate and she was advised to send it by post. Upon which she sent the non-creamy layer certificate on the very next day by registered post. Counsel submits that in the format supplied by the Bihar Public Service Commission there was no column/space for non-creamy layer specification. Counsel submits that the final result was published on 01.02.2019 and from the result it appears that Bihar Public Service Commission has cancelled the result of the petitioner along with ten others of preliminary and mains treating her candidate of general category for not obtaining cutoff marks of general category. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed application under Right to Information Act to provide the copy of her answer sheet but it was not provided. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred appeal under the R.T.I. Act and then filed second appeal which is still pending. Subsequently, petitioner received information under R.T.I. Act then it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that her candidature was treated as general candidate and she could not obtain the minimum cut off marks for general category, as such her result of preliminary and mains has been cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed representation before the Bihar Public Service Commission on 18.09.2019. Since there was no response then she filed the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner just on the very next date of her interview had sent the non-creamy layer certificate to the Bihar Public Service Commission as well as it is the categorical stand of the petitioner that in the format provided by Bihar Public Service Commission there was no space provided in the format supplied by the State and only due to this reason in the certificate it has not been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and Another reported in 2016(4) SCC 754 and submits that in this case the question decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court “Whether a candidate who appeared in an examination under the O.B.C. category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection on the post under the OBC or not?” has been answered in favour of the petitioner and Hon’ble Supreme Court has pleased to consider the case of the petitioner of the case referred herein and his appeal was allowed in his favour. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State Government has already issued a letter from the General Administrative Department No.673 dated 08.03.2011, in which guideline for consideration of reservation for the E.B.C. category with non-creamy layer certificate is an essential condition and it has to be followed at any cost. Counsel for the State further submits that the grievances of the petitioner is directly against the Bihar Public Service Commission, but stand of the State is that the said letter with regard to reservation is necessary to be followed. 8. Learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission, on the other hand, submits that counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit both have been filed. Annexure-A is the Advertisement for the preliminary examination, Annexure-B is the Advertisement for mains examination and Annexure-D series is the Interview programme and interview letter. Counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission put emphasis that in the advertisement of preliminary examination, mains examination and the information with regard to interview as well as the detailed programme for interview, it has been categorically mentioned that condition with regard to taking the benefit of reservation has to be fulfilled and in case there shall be any deficiency the candidate shall not be treated as reserve category and their candidature shall be considered under the general category. The Bihar Public Service Commission has taken stand that the petitioner could not be declared successful because petitioner failed to submit her original non-creamy layer certificate. The Bihar Public Service Commission has taken stand that the petitioner could not be declared successful because petitioner failed to submit her original non-creamy layer certificate. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied on the judgment of Kumari Pushpanjali Bala vs. State of Bihar passed in CWJC No.23248 of 2019 decided on 29.01.2020 [: 2021 (5) BLJ 564 ], in the case of Sarvesh Kumar @ Sarvesh Kumar Vijay Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others passed in CWJC No.3083 of 2019 decided on 05.03.2020 and in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar through Chief Secretary and Others reported in 2017(1) PLJR 786 and submits that in the reported case the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has made clear cut distinction between a certificate not submitted on time and the certificate which has been submitted without the non-creamy layer. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, there are following points which are admitted i.e., in the advertisement for preliminary exam the condition was clearly laid down in Clause 13(ii) and Clause 13(v) and in the advertisement for Mains examination the condition was laid down in Clause 1(ii) and 2(a). Subsequently, the condition was also mentioned in the general information issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission with regard to interview in Clause 3(iv) and Clause 4(ii). Subsequently, the condition was also mentioned in the general information issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission with regard to interview in Clause 3(iv) and Clause 4(ii). Subsequently, in the interview letter also the said condition was laid down in Clause 2(iv), extract of those conditions are as follows:— Conditions mentioned in Clause 13(ii) and Clause 13(v) of Preliminary Exam Advertisement: “13(ii) vkosnd ;g lqfuf'pr djsaxs fd lHkh okafNr izek.k&i= ewy :i esa muds ikl vkWuykbZu vkosnu Hkjrs le; miyCèk gSA 13(v) bl foKkiu ls lacafèkr of.kZr lHkh izek.k&i=] pkyku dh izfr ,oa vafre :i ls Hkjs x, vkWuykbZu vkosnu dks MS'k cksMZ ls MkmuyksM dj gkMZ dkWih vo'; j[ksaxsA vk;ksx }kjk lk{kkRdkj ds le; ;k fdlh Hkh le; ekaxs tkus ij mEehnokj dks gkMZ dkWih ,oa lHkh lacafèkr izek.k&i= fuf'pr :i ls izLrqr djuk gksxkA Conditions mentioned in Clause 1(ii) and 2(a) of Mains Exam Advertisement:— 1(ii) lekU; ç'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj ds ifji=k la-673] fnukad 08-03-2011 ds vkyksd esa vkjf{kr dksfV ds mEehnokj ;Fkk] vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds mEehnokjksa dks fuEukafdr çek.k i= tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxk%& (a) tkfr çek.k i= (b) LFkk;h fuokl çek.k i=kA fiNM+h tkfr ,oa vR;ar fiNM+h tkfr ds mEehnokjksa dks fuEukafdr çek.k i=k tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxk (a) Øhfeys;j jfgr çek.k i=k fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ dh n'kk esa] vius LFkk;h vfèkokl vapy ds jkT; ljdkj }kjk vfèklwfpr vapykfèkdkjh }kjk fuxZr Øhfeys;j jfgr çek.k i=k] ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr dh n'kk esa] vius LFkk;h vfèkokl vapy ds jkT; ljdkj }kjk vfèklwfpr vapykfèkdkjh }kjk fuxZr LFkk;h fuokl çek.k i=k ,oa tkfr çek.k i=k ekU; gksxkA vkj{k.k dk nkok djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mlls lcafèkr çek.k i=k çLrqr djus ds fy, mEehnokj ds lk{kkRdkj dh frfFk vafre frfFk gksxhA Conditions mentioned in Clause 3(iv) and Clause 4(ii) of general information issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission with regard to interview:— “3(iv) fiNM+k oxZ@vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;FkhZ ds fy, Øhehys;j jfgr ?kks"k.kk i=k ¼foxr 1&o"kZ ls iwoZ dk gksus ij½A 4(ii) fiNM+k oxZ@vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ dh fLFkfr esa lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj ds i=kad 673] fnukad 08-03-2011 ,oa i=kad 704] fnukad 10-03-2011 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj ljdkj }kjk fofufnZ"V fofgr çi= esa vius LFkk;h vfèkokl vapy ds vapy vfèkdkjh }kjk gLrk{kfjr] Øheh ys;j jfgr çek.k i= dh ewy çfr tek dj lR;kiu djkuk vfuok;Z gksxk] vU;Fkk vkidks vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA** 10. Subsequently, the judgment on which learned counsel for the petitioner relied has been discussed in the Division Bench judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar through Chief Secretary and Others (supra), which has been properly considered in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment which reads as under:— “6. Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The terms of the advertisement clearly disclose that the Reserved category candidate shall be required to produce the relevant caste certificate relating to not coming under the Creamy Layer in terms of the Circular No. 673 dated 08.03.2011 issued by the General Administration Department of which Clause (12) ii clearly stipulates that the certificate relating to income, is valid only for one year. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant enclosing only the certificate dated 16.04.2008 with regard to not belonging to the Creamy Layer and stating his income, lost its value after 15.04.2009 and could not have been made the basis of any claim for appointment in the present transaction. The appellant at the time of taking part in the interview on 24.06.2015 has written in his own pen that he was not producing the Creamy Layer certificate. It is also not the case of the appellant that he produced such certificate on 24.07.2015, which was the second opportunity given to such persons to produce the required certificate for verification. In absence of the same, the authorities cannot be faulted for considering the case of the appellant under the Unreserved (General) category and in that category the appellant having secured 41.61 marks was far below the last candidate selected who had 53.04 marks. 7. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court had submitted his caste certificate, though after the cut off date. In the present case, it has not even been averred that the certificate relating to not belonging to the Creamy Layer in terms of the relevant provisions, issued within one year, was produced by the appellant before the authorities. In the present case, it has not even been averred that the certificate relating to not belonging to the Creamy Layer in terms of the relevant provisions, issued within one year, was produced by the appellant before the authorities. Moreover, the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in relation to the person belonging to a particular caste which fact, obviously, cannot change, as it is dependent upon his birth, whereas in the present case, the fact of not coming under the Creamy Layer is subject to change with the efflux of time as income does vary and the stipulation for submitting certificate relating to income, being issued within one year, is reasonable and justified.” 11. In the light of the above said discussion, this Court is of the firm view that counsel for the petitioner has failed to submit the certificate of non-creamy layer at the level of preliminary test, at the level of mains examination and at the level of interview and subsequently taken the plea that the Examination Controller has instructed him to submit the said application through registered post. In this regard, it is very clear that Examination Controller is not competent to change the condition of the Advertisement. Therefore, this plea can not be acceptable to the Court. So far as the distinction made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this Court is fully agree from the said distinction. 12. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.