JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court is against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 31.7.2023 in Writ – A No. 21430 of 2022 (Renu vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), whereby the writ petition filed by Renu, non-appellant no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Original Writ Petitioner’) has been allowed and the order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj (the appellant herein) (for short ‘the Commission’) dated 16.11.2022, has been set aside and a direction was issued to the Director, Medical and Health, Government of U.P., Lucknow (proforma respondent no. 4 herein) to grant benefit of experience certificate to her and consider her candidature for appointment as a Staff Nurse, if all other conditions stand satisfied. Background Facts: 2. The U.P. Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 16.7.2021, notifying the holding of Staff Nurse/Sister Grade–2 (Male/Female) Examination, 2021. It was for filling up the posts of nursing staff in (a) Medical and Health Services Department (b) Medical Education and Training Department and (c) KGMU. The date of commencement of submission of online application was 16.7.2021; last date for receipt of examination fee online in the bank was 12.8.2021 and last date for submission of online application was 16.8.2021. Clause 10(4) of the advertisement stipulated that a maximum of 15 marks would be awarded to a candidate for past experience as Staff Nurse on contractual basis. For the first completed year of service, a candidate would be entitled to 3 marks. For the next and every completed year of service on contract basis, 3 marks for each year. In this regard, the certificate issued by the Competent Authority only was to be treated as valid. The said stipulation around which the controversy revolves, in the present appeal is extracted below: - 10(4) Selection shall carry on hundred marks. The merit list of the candidates shall be prepared in the following manner : - (a) Written Examination shall carry ……… Eighty Five marks. (b) Marks to a person who is working as Staff Nurse on contract basis in the Medical and Health Services Department, Uttar Pradesh shall be awarded in the following manner subject to the maximum of fifteen marks: - (i) For the first completed year of service on contract basis …… Three marks. (b) Marks to a person who is working as Staff Nurse on contract basis in the Medical and Health Services Department, Uttar Pradesh shall be awarded in the following manner subject to the maximum of fifteen marks: - (i) For the first completed year of service on contract basis …… Three marks. (ii) For the next and every completed year of service on contract basis, Three marks for each year. In this regard the certificate issued by the Appointing Authority only shall be treated valid. A Proforma for this purpose is available in Appendix – 6 of this advertisement. (c) The marks obtained by each candidate under clause (a) shall, where applicable, be added to the marks obtained under clause (b). Note : The candidates must possess all the requisite qualifications upto the last date for submitting the applications. 3. Thus, out of total 100 marks on which candidates were to be tested, 85 marks were allocated for the written examination and 15 marks for past experience in service. 4. The aforesaid stipulation was in accordance with Rule 15 of the U.P. Subordinate Nursing (Non-Gazetted) Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2016 (for short ‘the Rules 2016’). 5. The Original Writ Petitioner after completing all the formalities, appeared in the written examination. The result was declared on 4.1.2022 and she was shown selected. She had secured 28.50 marks in the written examination and was given 12 marks for experience. Thus, she had secured a total of 40.50 marks. After the result was declared, a Writ Petition bearing No. 1815 of 2022 (Priti Patel and another vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed challenging the result on the ground that the Commission did not properly scrutinize the experience certificates of the candidates. In the said writ petition, the Commission made statement through its counsel that it would re-scrutinize the experience certificates of 814 selected candidates in respect of whom recommendation for appointment had not been made to the State Government by that time. The Court having regard to the said submission permitted the Commission to carry out the said exercise. 6. In pursuance thereof, the Commission re-scrutinized the experience certificates and issued fresh select list on 23.8.2022, in which the name of the petitioner was missing. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed experience certificate dated 9.11.2021 issued by Chief Medical Officer, Rampur. 6. In pursuance thereof, the Commission re-scrutinized the experience certificates and issued fresh select list on 23.8.2022, in which the name of the petitioner was missing. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had filed experience certificate dated 9.11.2021 issued by Chief Medical Officer, Rampur. In the said certificate, the Chief Medical Officer by mistake mentioned that the petitioner had worked as Nurse Mentor instead of Staff Nurse. The said mistake, it seems, came to the knowledge of the petitioner when she found her name missing in the revised result declared on 23.8.2022. On 24.8.2022, she submitted another certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, certifying that she had worked as Staff Nurse. She also filed yet another certificate from Chief Medical Officer dated 30.8.2022, stating that by inadvertence and oversight, it came to be mentioned in the certificate issued on 9.11.2021 that she had worked as Nurse Mentor in place of Staff Nurse (contractual basis). The petitioner represented to the Commission on 5.9.2022 on basis of the aforesaid certificates and highlighted the inadvertent mistake on part of the Issuing Authority and prayed for being declared selected. 7. It is pertinent to note that out of total advertised posts, 1,729 posts had remained vacant as the same could not be filled up because of non-availability of suitable eligible candidates. However, the representation filed by the petitioner did not find favour with the Commission and was rejected by the order dated 16.11.2022. It has been observed therein that the original writ petitioner had filed experience certificate as Nurse Mentor and consequently she was not given the benefit of past experience. In other words, the Commission declined to take notice of the experience certificate dated 24.8.2022 and another certificate dated 30.8.2022, in which the Issuing Authority admitted its mistake. 8. The learned Single Judge after considering a number of judgments of Supreme Court and of this Court, held in favour of the Original Writ Petitioner and issued direction for considering the experience certificate and aggrieved whereby, the instant appeal has been filed. Issues: 9. The main issue for consideration is whether the petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of experience as Staff Nurse and whether the certificates furnished by her from time to time, could be considered for awarding marks on that score. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties: 10. Issues: 9. The main issue for consideration is whether the petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of experience as Staff Nurse and whether the certificates furnished by her from time to time, could be considered for awarding marks on that score. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties: 10. Shri Nisheet Yadav, counsel for the Commission contended that the Original Writ Petitioner had submitted the experience certificate of working on the post of Nurse Mentor and not Staff Nurse along with the hard copy of the online application form in terms of notifications dated 02.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 issued by the Commission after declaration of result of the written examination. Therefore, the Commission did not grant her marks for experience as that would have been in contravention of the Rules 2016 as well as the stipulations in the advertisement. The Commission in its aforesaid notifications dated 02.11.2021 and 15.11.2021, specified a cut-off date for submitting the testimonials/ documents and also mentioned that no claim would be entertained thereafter and therefore it was bound by the same. In case the Commission entertains any claim after the cut-off date, it would be an unending process and the Commission would not be able to finalize the selection process. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments: - (i) The State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. G. Hemalathaa and another, (2020) 19 SCC 430 ; (ii) Gaurav Sharma vs. State of U.P., AIR 2017 ALL 116 (FB); (iii) Rajendra Patel vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2015 ALL 161 (FB). 11. On the other hand, Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the Original Writ Petitioner, submitted that the petitioner duly possessed the requisite experience. The inadvertent mistake on part of the Issuing Authority in the certificate originally furnished, but which was rectified as soon as the mistake was detected, would not disentitle her to the marks under the heading “experience”. The post of Nurse Mentor is a superior post and therefore even otherwise, experience on the said post could not have been brushed aside. There is difference in a candidate possessing essential qualification before the prescribed last date which is a must and from which there cannot be any deviation. However, the same principle would not apply to furnishing of documents in proof thereof, which is only directory in nature, being in the realm of procedure. There is difference in a candidate possessing essential qualification before the prescribed last date which is a must and from which there cannot be any deviation. However, the same principle would not apply to furnishing of documents in proof thereof, which is only directory in nature, being in the realm of procedure. Moreover, in the instant case, the Commission itself extended the date for submitting the documents from time to time and therefore, it could not have ignored the experience certificate of the petitioner. It is also urged that it was not a case of filing of experience certificate after the prescribed date, but only correction of the error in the original certificate. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: - (i) Charles K. Skaria and others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 ; (ii) Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, Jee and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 ; (iii) Food Corporation of India vs. Rimjhim, (2019) 5 SCC 793 ; (iv) Aarav Jain vs. The Bihar Public Service Commission and others, (2022) 14 SCC 35 ; (v) Sweety Kumari vs. State of Bihar and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1212; (vi) Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472; (vii) Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341. Analysis: 12. Before we proceed to analyse the issue involved, certain facts which are not in dispute, are noted hereunder - The petitioner applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.7.2021. Under the Service Rules as well as in terms of the advertisement, a candidate is entitled to a maximum of 15 marks for experience as Staff Nurse on contractual basis. The petitioner had worked as Staff Nurse on contractual basis under National Rural Health Mission from 01.04.2015 to 18.10.2019, i.e. for more than four years. It thus entitled her to 12 marks towards ‘experience’. The petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 03.10.2021 and was declared successful. Thereafter, in pursuance of press communique (Notification) dated 3.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 requiring the candidates to submit hard copy of the online application form and documents in support of the claim made in the application, she submitted experience certificate dated 9.11.2021, issued by Chief Medical Officer, Rampur. When the final result was published on 04.01.2022, she was declared selected. Thereafter, in pursuance of press communique (Notification) dated 3.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 requiring the candidates to submit hard copy of the online application form and documents in support of the claim made in the application, she submitted experience certificate dated 9.11.2021, issued by Chief Medical Officer, Rampur. When the final result was published on 04.01.2022, she was declared selected. She was awarded 12 marks for past experience. However, on re-scrutiny, when revised result was declared on 23.8.2023, her name was missing from the list of selected candidates. The petitioner on coming to know of discrepancy in the original experience certificate dated 9.11.2021, got another certificate issued on 24.8.2022 by Chief Medical Officer, Rampur. He also issued a certificate on 30.8.2022, admitting the mistake while issuing the original certificate. 13. In the above backdrop, it has to be examined whether the stand taken by the Commission is sustainable or not and whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ-petitioner was entitled to the benefit of experience as Staff Nurse. 14. One of the first principles clearly discernible from various judgments cited by counsel for the parties is that the rules/instructions framed by the Commission are binding and the Commission is not empowered to relax the same. Thus, in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), where the instructions framed by the Commission stipulated that in case of use of whitener, sketch pens, pencils, colour pencils, multi-colour pencils, crayons, etc. a candidate would be disqualified, use of such material by candidate leading to disqualification was upheld. 15. There are series of decisions which draw distinction between essential requirements and the proof/mode of proof. It has been held that while the general rule is that a candidate should possess the eligibility qualification on a specified date or in its absence on the last date of submitting the application form and for which there can be no relaxation, but the same does not apply in relation to the requirement of submitting documents in proof thereof. 16. Thus in Charles K. Skaria, (supra), a case relating to admission to post-graduate course in Ophthalmology, a weightage of 10 per cent marks was provided to candidates possessing diploma in the relevant stream. The benefit was denied to the appellants before the Supreme Court on the ground that they had failed to produce the diploma certificate alongwith application form, despite specific requirements to the said effect. The benefit was denied to the appellants before the Supreme Court on the ground that they had failed to produce the diploma certificate alongwith application form, despite specific requirements to the said effect. The Supreme Court drawing distinction between possessing of the qualification and its proof observed as follows: "20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. The prospectus does say: (4) (b) 10% to diploma holders in the selection of candidates to M. S., and M. D., courses in the respective subjects or sub-specialities. 13. Certificates to be produced :- In all cases true copies of the following documents have to be produced :— (k) Any other certificates required along with the application. This composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence." (emphasis supplied) 17. The judgement in Charles K. Skaria (supra) was followed by a three Judge Bench in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others (supra). The facts of the said case are very similar to that of the instant case. The appellant therein submitted application for appearing in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2003 under the reserved M.I. category being daughter of an ex-servicemen, who was discharged from armed forces on the ground of permanent disability. Under Clause 2.1.4 of the admission brochure, certain percentage of seats were reserved for children, widows of personnel of armed/ para military forces of Orissa, killed/disabled in action during war or peace time operations. Her position was 20 in M.I. category and she was called for counselling. During scrutiny of papers, it transpired that the certificate dated 29.06.2003 given to her father by Zila Sainik Board in column three pertaining to ‘disabled/killed in war/hostilities’ contained an endorsement "not eligible". Consequently, her candidature was rejected. She then filed another certificate dated 16.07.2003, which mentioned that her father was permanently disabled. This, undoubtedly entitled her to the benefit of M.I. category. However, it was not considered on the ground that she failed to produce the said certificate at the time of counselling on 07.07.2003. The appellant filed writ petition contending that she falls under M.I. category and she could not be made to suffer for the fault committed by Zila Sainik Board in not issuing a correct certificate in the first instance. The writ filed by her was dismissed. The appellant filed writ petition contending that she falls under M.I. category and she could not be made to suffer for the fault committed by Zila Sainik Board in not issuing a correct certificate in the first instance. The writ filed by her was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that there can be relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. The relevant observations in paragraph no.7 of the law report are extracted below: "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 to 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." (emphasis supplied) 18. In Food Corporation of India (supra), the Supreme Court followed the judgement in Charles K. Skaria and Dolly Chhanda and considered the experience certificate of a candidate filed alongwith the writ petition, again drawing distinction between a fact and its proof. The relevant observations are as follows: 13. In Food Corporation of India (supra), the Supreme Court followed the judgement in Charles K. Skaria and Dolly Chhanda and considered the experience certificate of a candidate filed alongwith the writ petition, again drawing distinction between a fact and its proof. The relevant observations are as follows: 13. Now so far as the submission or behalf of the FCI that a candidate must and/or ought to have produced the experience certificate along with the application is concerned, at this stage, a decision of this Court in Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew and the subsequent decision of this Court in Dolly Chhanda v. JEE are required to be referred to. In Charles K. Skaria, this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between the essential requirements and the proof/mode of proof. In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between a fact and its proof. In the aforesaid case before this Court, a candidate/student was entitled to extra 10% marks for holders of a diploma and the diploma must be obtained on or before the last date of the application, not later. In the aforesaid case, a candidate secured diploma before the final date of application, but did not produce the evidence of diploma along with the application. Therefore, he was not allowed extra 10% marks and therefore denied the admission. Dealing with such a situation, this Court observed and held that what was essential requirement was that a candidate must have obtained the diploma on or before the last date of application but not later, and that is the primary requirement and to submit the proof that the diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per the essential requirement is secondary. This Court specifically observed and held that "What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification." This Court specifically observed and held that "To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity." (emphasis supplied) 19. Now, coming to the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Gaurav Sharma (supra), it is noticeable that there was requirement of filing OBC certificate before a prescribed date. Now, coming to the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Gaurav Sharma (supra), it is noticeable that there was requirement of filing OBC certificate before a prescribed date. The Full Bench held that a candidate claiming benefit of OBC category has to establish twin conditions: (i) that he belongs to OBC category recognized by State and (ii) that he does not fall within creamy layer. These requirements were to be adjudged with reference to the date prescribed in the advertisement. The Full Bench took notice of the fact that OBC certificate (non-creamy layer) is issued with reference to financial condition of holder or his parents assessed over a period of three years and, therefore, it was liable to change over a period of time. Therefore, a caste certificate submitted after the prescribed last date was held to be inadmissible. The said judgement, in our considered opinion, would not apply to the facts of the instant case, where there is no dispute of the fact that the original writ petitioner possessed experience as staff nurse but was denied its benefit only on account of mistake on the part of the issuing authority in mentioning her experience to be on the post of staff mentor instead of staff nurse. 20. The judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 , on which reliance was placed before the Full Bench in submitting that OBC certificate filed even later on could be considered, was distinguished on the ground that therein the need of filing OBC Certificate was not a pre-condition for accepting the application form but was notified along with the declaration of result. To highlight the said aspect, even Para 8 of the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was quoted, which is as follows: - "8. Mr. R.C. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in not giving the opportunity to the appellant to submit the O.B.C. certificate after the cut-off date of the application. The requirement of submitting the O.B.C. certificate before the cut-off date of the application was introduced by the respondent-DSSSB only while declaring the result on 15.12.2008, holding that the appellant was not eligible for selection of the post of Staff Nurse as the O.B.C. certificate was received after cut-off date. The requirement of submitting the O.B.C. certificate before the cut-off date of the application was introduced by the respondent-DSSSB only while declaring the result on 15.12.2008, holding that the appellant was not eligible for selection of the post of Staff Nurse as the O.B.C. certificate was received after cut-off date. The learned counsel contends that the stand of respondent-DSSSB is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and is also contrary to the settled proposition of law and guidelines issued on reservation and concession for candidates belonging to the reserved categories. The learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was categorically held by the High Court that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit such certificates even after the cut-off date fixed by the advertisement". 21. A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Karn Singh Yadav (supra) referred the issue involved in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) to Bench of three judges. When Karn Singh Yadav case came up before the Larger Bench, the Larger Bench in para-5 observed as follows : “It must be stated here that an identical fact situation came up for consideration before this Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 , wherein this Court ruled in favour of the concerned candidate. The instant matter is thus completely covered by said decision.” At the same time, noticing that the candidate was never appointed to the post in question and the matter related to the year 2007 and considerable time had lapsed, no relief was granted. 22. The judgment in Karn Singh Yadav (supra) was considered by the Supreme Court in Divya vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2023, decided on 09.10.2023. It is observed that the three Judge Bench in Karn Singh Yadav (supra) did not answer the question. Another judgment of three Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 , was preferred and relied upon. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was distinguished on the ground that in the said case, requirement of filing OBC Certificate before the cut-off date was notified by the Selection Body while declaring the result. The relevant observations are as follows: - "54. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was distinguished on the ground that in the said case, requirement of filing OBC Certificate before the cut-off date was notified by the Selection Body while declaring the result. The relevant observations are as follows: - "54. The strong reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gijroya case (supra) also does not impress us. Not only was there no rule, like we have in the present case, it was only while declaring the result, the requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before the cut-off date was introduced by the Selection Authority there . Moreover, unlike the present, there was no contention or issue raised in that case that eligibility enures or crystalizes only on the issuance of the certificate and on possession of the certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date." (emphasis supplied) It is noteworthy that in the said case, under the relevant Rules, it was mandatory for a candidate to possess EWS certificate before the prescribed cut-off date. There was a negative covenant by way of Rule 13 that the proof of documents filed beyond the last date of submitting the application form would not be admissible and shall lead to cancellation of the candidature. Having regard to the said negative covenant, it was held that for a candidate to be eligible, he/she should not only fall in EWS category but should possess said certificate by the relevant date. It is for the said reason that the judgment in Charles K. Skaria (supra) and other cases echoing the same view, were distinguished. It is evident from para-45 of the Law Report, which is extracted :- That is the fundamental distinction between the Charles K. Skaria (supra) line of cases and the cases at hand. As pointed out earlier, the eligibility for being categorized as EWS candidate crystallizes only when the I &AC is issued and, in this case, as required under the rules, it was to be issued and possessed by the candidate before 22.02.2022. 23. The judgment in Divya vs. Union of India (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, there was no prescription of possessing experience certificate by the last date prescribed for submitting online application rather the advertisement itself provided that the date for submitting proof of claims would be notified by the Commission in due course. 23. The judgment in Divya vs. Union of India (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, there was no prescription of possessing experience certificate by the last date prescribed for submitting online application rather the advertisement itself provided that the date for submitting proof of claims would be notified by the Commission in due course. This was also the situation in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) where the Commission notified the requirement of filing OBC Certificate at the time of declaring the result. 24. Other Full Bench judgement of this Court in Rajendra Patel (supra) is also not of much help to the appellants. Therein, there was a prescribed last date for filing the documents and a negative covenant to the effect that in case the prescribed dead-line for completing various stages of recruitment is not complied with scrupulously, it would entail rejection of the candidature. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Full Bench observed as follows: "Reliance was also sought to be placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman, JEE, In Dolly Chhanda (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in the application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. The Supreme Court held that there could be no relaxation in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. However, depending upon the facts of the case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submitting proof and it may not be proper to apply a rigid, principle which may pertain to the domain of procedure. Hence, every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in the rejection of the candidature. These principles which have been laid down are not in dispute and they cannot be. However, the issue in the present case is whether the submission of a hard copy by the specified date together with all the documents was merely a matter of procedure. These principles which have been laid down are not in dispute and they cannot be. However, the issue in the present case is whether the submission of a hard copy by the specified date together with all the documents was merely a matter of procedure. To accept the submission of the petitioner would, as we have held earlier, result in a situation where a candidate would be entitled to assert that despite the stipulated last date and a prescribed consequence of invalidation which has been drawn to the notice of the candidates, the Commission would be bound to scrutinise applications which are received together with the hard copies beyond the prescribed date. This, in our view, would not be permissible. We may also note that in a judgment in Secretary, UP Public Service Commission Vs S Krishna Chaitanya, the Supreme Court has held that the Commission cannot be directed to declare the final results when the application form of a candidate had not been received within the prescribed period." 25. The cardinal principles which emerge from the above discussion are that- (a) A candidate should possess the prescribed qualification before cut-off date or the last date prescribed for submission of the application form unless there is stipulation to the contrary. (b) There is difference between the fact of possessing minimum prescribed qualification by a specified date and the proof thereof. While there can be no relaxation in the first requirement, in appropriate cases and having regard to the fact of particular case and the Recruitment Scheme, there can be some relaxation in submitting the proof. (c) If there is stipulated last date and a prescribed consequence of invalidation, the same is sacrosanct and cannot be relaxed. 26. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is important to note certain stipulations in the original advertisement dated 16.07.2021. Note no. 2 provided that - “the candidate must send hard copy of their online applications and enclose self-attested copies of all certificates in support of their claim rendered in the online application. In this connection, a separate press communique shall be published in due course by the Commission.” 27. Clause no. 13(4) of the ‘Important instructions to candidates’ provided that- ‘The candidates will have to enclose self-attested copies of mark sheets, certificates and degrees alongwith the application forms of examination in support of their claim of educational qualifications. In this connection, a separate press communique shall be published in due course by the Commission.” 27. Clause no. 13(4) of the ‘Important instructions to candidates’ provided that- ‘The candidates will have to enclose self-attested copies of mark sheets, certificates and degrees alongwith the application forms of examination in support of their claim of educational qualifications. If they do not enclose self-attested copies of certificates/documents in support of their claims, the application shall be rejected.’ 28. Clause no. 13(10) stipulates that - ‘The Commission may admit the candidate provisionally after summarily checking of the applications but if it is found at any stage that the applicant was not eligible or that his/her application should have been rejected or not entertainable initially, his/her candidature will be rejected and if the candidate is selected, the recommendation of the Commission for selection shall be withdrawn.’ 29. The scheme of selection, as evident from the aforesaid stipulations in the advertisement is that initially the applications were entertained provisionally on basis of disclosures made in the application. Later, the Commission would notify, by a separate press communique, the date by which hard copy of the online applications and self-attested copies of all certificates and documents in support of the claim made in the online applications were to be submitted before the Commission by a specified date. This is also admitted to the Commission in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the affidavit filed in the instant appeal. 30. Accordingly, the Commission after conducting the written examination, notified the list of candidates, who had obtained marks above the minimum efficiency standard. It was 25 marks for candidates of General category and 20 marks for SC & ST candidates. The petitioner, who had obtained marks above minimum efficiency standard was duly included in the list. The Commission issued a press communique in shape of a notification on 03.11.2021 requiring the candidates, who had obtained marks above cut-off marks, to fill online application form mentioning therein the details in respect of the date, sex, residence, category etc. and after filling up online application form, the candidate was required to save and submit hard copy of the application form along with relevant certificates in support of the claim made in the application form by 18.11.2021. Paragraph nos.1, 2 and 5 of the said notification are extracted below: 31. and after filling up online application form, the candidate was required to save and submit hard copy of the application form along with relevant certificates in support of the claim made in the application form by 18.11.2021. Paragraph nos.1, 2 and 5 of the said notification are extracted below: 31. Thereafter, the said time limit was relaxed and was extended up to 22.11.2021 by notification dated 15.11.2021. 32. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the aforesaid notifications were issued after holding of the written examination. The petitioner, admittedly, obtained marks above the cut-off marks. The selection scheme was not such that appearance of candidates in the written examination was dependent upon proof of experience. On the contrary, Note no. 2 of the advertisement itself provided that separate press communique would be issued at appropriate stage of selection notifying the date for filing documents in support of the claims made in the application. Thus, the requirement of filing documents had nothing do with eligibility, but with proof of claims made in the online application submitted after declaration of the result of the written- examination. The two press communique issued were in realm of procedure and since their was nothing sacrosanct in it, the Commission itself extended the time fixed for submitting documents. Undoubtedly, the benefit of experience which was claimed was for the period anterior to the last date prescribed for submitting the online applications i.e., 16.08.2021. 33. In pursuance of notification dated 22.11.2021 and 15.11.2021, the petitioner submitted hard copy of online application forms, testimonials and certificates. In support of experience as ‘staff nurse’, she submitted experience certificate dated 09.11.2021, issued by Chief Medical Officer. It was in prescribed proforma – Appendix 6. It was as follows: - Ifjf'k"V &6 ^^m0 iz0 v/khuLFk uflZax ¼vjktif=r½ lsok ¼prqFkZ la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2016 ds fu;e 15¼3½ ¼[k½ ds ifjis{; esa LVkQ ulZ ds :i esa lafonk ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zjr vH;fFZk;ksa ds fy, vko';d izek.k & i= dk izk:i % izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh@dq0@Jherh jsuw iq=@iq=h@iRuh & y{e.k tUe frfFk 19-09-1989 LFkk;h fuoklh & dk'khjke ,p &90 }kjdk/khl efUnj eqjknkcknA fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok,a foHkkx] m0 iz0 esa lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fnukad& 01-04-2015 ls ulZ esUVj osru :-23000@& ds in ij dk;Zjr gS A LFkku & jkeiqj fnukad &09-11-2021 g0@ fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh eqgj Chief Medical Officer Rampur” 34. The ‘heading’ of the certificate reveals that it was in respect of experience of a person as ‘Staff Nurse’. However, in the end, it came to be mentioned that the Original Writ Petitioner worked as ‘Staff Mentor’ instead of ‘Staff Mentor’. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner had worked as a ‘Staff Nurse’ only, on contractual basis, and not as ‘Staff Nurse’. However, it seems that it escaped notice of the Commission as well as the petitioner. It was only when re-scrutiny was done, that the mistake was discovered. As soon as the mistake came to the notice of the petitioner, she applied for its correction and submitted corrected certificate dated 24.08.2022 alongwith another certificate of the issuing authority dated 30.08.2022 admitting its mistake. Concededly, the certificate initially filed by the petitioner was well within time stipulated by the respondents vide the aforesaid two notifications. 35. Another noteworthy feature is that the selection in question was for filling up the posts of staff nurses, which are posts of utmost importance in any medical set up or hospital. They play crucial role as caregiver for patients by managing their physical needs, administering medications, maintaining medical records, etc. In fact, no hospital can run successfully without adequate nursing staff at its disposal. It is not disputed that even after the present selection, as many as 1729 posts could not be filled up because eligible candidates were not available. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had passed the written examination and she also possess the experience as staff nurse. 36. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are of considered opinion that it would not be proper to non-suit the petitioner on account of mistake committed by a third party. Even, if her claim is admitted, no one would be adversely affected. On the other hand, the State health system would get an additional hand when large number of posts of staff nurses are lying vacant because of non-availability of eligible candidates. 37. One more factor, which weigh with us is that the Writ Court has already allowed the claim of the writ petitioner. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is a possible view in the peculiar facts of the instant case. We therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction in intra-court appeal. 38. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is a possible view in the peculiar facts of the instant case. We therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction in intra-court appeal. 38. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs.