ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs : “(i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by respondent no.2 (so far as concerned O.B.C. Candidate Male), selection of respondent no. 4 and 5, and direct the respondent no.2 to substitute name of the petitioner in place of respondent no.4 for Patwari Training. (ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the respondent no.1 issued advertisement for Patwari Training Selection Examination-2017 for various district of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner applied for District-Sukma, because he is permanent resident at District-Sukma, as per advertisement, for District- Sukma, the total post was-35, in which 02 posts were reserved for General Category, 03 posts were reserved for O.B.C. (in which For Male-2 and Female-1), for S.C. Candidate 01 posts was reserved and for S.T. Candidate 29 post were reserved, the petitioner and other candidate moved an application for the said post. 3. The petitioner online applied as O.B.C. candidate, in which 3 seat were reserved (For Male-2 and Female-1), the respondents authority scrutinized the application of the petitioner and other candidate, subsequently, on 02.06.2017, issued a letter to the petitioner for verification of his original documents and date was fixed from 05.06.2017 to 15.06.2017. The petitioner appeared before the authority, thereafter the authority verified the documents of the petitioner. After completing all the formalities, on 31.07.2017, the respondent no.2 issued final selection list, whereby respondent no.2 selected private respondent no.4 and 5 for Patwari training and not selected to the petitioner, whereas the petitioner secured second rank of the O.B.C. category in the District Sukma i.e. he obtained higher marks from the private respondents. 4. The petitioner approach before the authority and ask them, why he not selected for patwari training, whereas he obtain higher marks from the private respondents, the authority ask to the petitioner, that in the domicile certificate signature of the authority not shown, he contact from Choice Center, Sukma, wherefrom certificate was issued, regarding correctness of domicile certificate, he said that, this document is correct, no problem in the said documents, the collector authorized to choice center to issue certain certificate and this certificate issued after completing all the formalities. The respondents authority not accepted his domicile certificate, therefore on 14.06.2017, the petitioner again online applied for domicile certificate, on 16.06.2017 his application approved and certificate issued on 19.06.2017, the petitioner submitted this certificate to the respondents authority, but no response, on 31.07.2017, the respondent no.2 issued final selection list in which the petitioner not selected, then, immediately the petitioner moved detail application before the authority, his application is still pending, no decision has been taken by the authority. 5. On 31.07.2017, the respondent no.2 issued final selection list, in which the petitioner not selected, then, immediately, the petitioner moved detail application before the authority, his application is still pending no decision has been taken by the authority. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached before Ganesh Choice Center Sukma, who is issuing authority of Domicile Certificate, regarding correctness of said certificate, who said, the certificate is correct, he issued about 1000-1200 certificates in the district-Sukma and on the basis of this types certificates, number of candidate obtained service and till date enjoying service benefits, and he also said that, if there is any problem in the said certificate, he can verify from the website and Telephone no. 0771-4080106. The petitioner given information to the respondent authority, but they have not given any response to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner contacted E-center, Raipur by Telephone regarding correctness of his domicile certificate. His grievance heard by the authority and given information to the petitioner by Telephonic, that his certificate is correct, before 2016 digital signature not shown in the certificate and the signature start shown of the authority in the certificate from January 2016. The authority not rejected the domicile certificate of the petitioner dated 10.06.2015 and on 19.06.2017, issued fresh domicile certificate in favor of the petitioner, it means the petitioner's certificate is correct and he is permanent resident of District Sukma. 8. By application dated 02.08.2017, the petitioner submitted both certificate before the authority, therefore non-selection of the petitioner is mala fide and illegal on this ground alone and the impugned order liable to be rejected. The respondent authorities without any enquiry from choice center Sukma, denied the certificate of the petitioner, due to non-signature of authority, this action of the respondents are illegal. Without enquiry it cannot be said that the certificate is fake and not acceptable. The respondent authorities without any enquiry from choice center Sukma, denied the certificate of the petitioner, due to non-signature of authority, this action of the respondents are illegal. Without enquiry it cannot be said that the certificate is fake and not acceptable. Future of candidates depends on this types of certificate, therefore the action of the respondents are arbitrary and illegal and the impugned order dated 31.07.2017 is liable to be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner submits that an advertisement (Annexure P/2) was issued by the Department inviting applications from the eligible and interested candidates for Patwari Training for all districts of the State of Chhattisgarh. For District Sukma, total 35 posts were advertised and out of which, 3 posts (2 for open and 1 for female) were advertised. The requisite qualifications and terms and conditions were also described in detail. Condition no. 8 of the advertisement clearly provides that before submitting the information, the candidate was required to examine and ensure that he possesses all the requisite qualifications prescribed and fulfills all the necessary eligibility fixed for the selection and after submission of information in the application form, prior to examination and after declaration of result, the mistake, if any, shall not be allowed to be corrected. The petitioner submitted applied online for Patwari Training and appeared in the examination conducted. 10. After declaration of the result, the candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 and 5 were called for verification of documents and testimonial by issuing the letters and in response to the same, the petitioner appeared before the respondents and during verification of documents, it was found that the domicile certificate produced by the petitioner does not bear the digital signature of the issuing authority and therefore, the same was not considered and the respondents no. 4 and 5 have submitted their documents which were found as per requirement and therefore, they were found eligible for selection. As such, the petitioner was not found eligible despite having the more/higher marks than the marks obtained by the respondents no. 4 and 5. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the answering respondents in selecting the respondents no. 4 and 5. 11. As such, the petitioner was not found eligible despite having the more/higher marks than the marks obtained by the respondents no. 4 and 5. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the answering respondents in selecting the respondents no. 4 and 5. 11. The second domicile certificate filed by the petitioner was issued on 19/06/2017 after the cut off date, therefore, the answering respondents have not considered/allowed the second certificate. Therefore, the answering respondents have rightly selected and appointed the respondents no. 4 and 5 on being found eligible and impugned order (Annexure P/1) is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. This petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 also opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 13. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No.5, as he refused to accept notice, as per order dated 28.01.2019. 14. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 15. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5 appeared in the examination and it is also not disputed that the petitioner has scored higher marks than the respondents No.4 & 5. As per respondents, petitioner was denied on this ground that in his domicile certificate, signature of issuing authority is missing. 15. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5 appeared in the examination and it is also not disputed that the petitioner has scored higher marks than the respondents No.4 & 5. As per respondents, petitioner was denied on this ground that in his domicile certificate, signature of issuing authority is missing. The petitioner filed Annexure D/1 as an additional document, which is a letter of General Administration Department, Chhattisgarh Government, dated 26.02.2004, which provides as under: izfr 1- 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu 2- leLr foHkkxk/;{k NRrhlxढ+ 3- leLr dysDVj NRrhlxढ+ fo"k; %& NRrhlxढ+ ukxfjd lsok ¼bysDVªkWfud vf/k'kklu½ fu;e] 2003 vUrxZr tkjh izek.k i= ckcn~A lanHkZ& NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu m|ksx ¼lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh½ foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad 806@ih,l@,lvkbZVh@2003@pkWbl fnukad 19 vxLr 2003A &&& lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e] 2000 ds vuqdze esa jkT; 'kklu }kjk ykxw fd;s x;s NRrhlxढ+ ukxfjd lsok ¼bysDVªkWfud vf/k'kklu½ fu;e] 2003 ds varxZr pkWbl ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls lapkfyr fofHkUu ukxfjd lsokvksa ds izek.k&i= ,oa vfHkys[k ukxfjdksa dks tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA bl i= ds lkFk NRrhlxढ+ ukxfjd lsok ¼bysDVªkWfud vf/k'kklu½ fu;e] 2003 izsf"kr gSA 'kkldh; dk;kZy;ksa ls tkjh izek.k&i= ,oa vfHkys[k] bu fu;eksa ds varxZr fu;qDr pkWbl ,tsaV ds gLrk{kj }kjk izekf.kr dj iznku djus dk dk;Z bu fu;eksa ds v/khu fd;k tk jgk gSaA lwpuk izks|ksfxdh vf/kfu;e] 2000 dh /kkjk 4 ds varxZr ,sls lHkh izdj.kksa esa tgka fyf[kr ,oa eqfnzr vfHkys[kksa dh vko';drk gksrh gS] ds LFkku ij bysDVªkWfud vfHkys[k dks oS/kkfud ekU;rk iznku dh xbZ gSA ,sls vfHkys[k ds lR;kiu gsrq fMftVy gLrk{kj dk izko/kku gSA jkT; 'kklu ds dfri; dk;kZy;ksa }kjk pkWbl ,tsaV }kjk tkjh fd;s tk jgs izek.k i= dks ekU;rk u nsus rFkk dsoy ikjEifjd izfdz;k ls tkjh izek.k i= pkgs x;s gSa] tks mfPkr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa d`i;k layXu tUe izek.k i= dk voyksdu djsa ftlesa bldh oS/krk Kkr djus dh izfdz;k n'kkZbZ xbZ gS] ftlls izekf.kdrk Kkr dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa dks bl fo"k; esa voxr djkrs gq, fu;eksa dk ikyu lqfuf'pr djk,aA lyXu&mijksDrkuqlkj iadt f}osnh izeq[k lfpo NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx 16. When this petition was listed before the Court on 28.01.2019, it was observed that: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let reply be filed within a further period of three weeks from today Considering the fact that from 2017 till date no final appointment orders have been issued, let status quo as it exists today be maintained till the reply of the respondents are filed and matter is taken up for further consideration.” 17. This letter was served to all head of the offices of Government of Chhattisgarh and all Collector and all Department of Chhattisgarh Government. In this case, the respondent No.2 is Collector, Sukma, respondent No.3 is President of Selection Committee, therefore, it is clear that this letter was served to respondents No. 1 to 3 before denying candidature of the petitioner on the ground of absence of signature. 18. The respondents did not try to verify the genuineness of certificate and denied the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed verification report of certificate and from this report it is clear that the petitioner having domicile certificate before cut-off date. As per petitioner, when the respondent authorities objected, he again filed second certificate, but the same was not considered by the respondent authorities. The action of the respondent authorities are against the circular of Government (Annexure D/1) and denying appointment of petitioner is not proper. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others” reported in AIR 2004 SC 5043 held in para 7 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 is7 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. 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.” 20. This Court in the matter of “Ram Ashish Shrivastava and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and another”, reported in 2011 Law Suit (Chh) 689 held in paras 8 & 10 as under:- “8. It is clear from Clause (6) of “the important information” which was specially published in the advertisement itself stated that no original or photocopy of any document was required to be annexed with OMR application. Accordingly, the application was made by the petitioners. it is indisputable that the Petitioners had passed NET before making the application and the rejection of the candidature on the above-stated ground from any angle is not sustainable. 10. This court also in Shweta Pandey observed that possession of certificate is not a precondition before making the application.” 21. In the case in hand case also, it is clear that the petitioner had bonafide certificate before cut off date. It is not a case of the respondents that certificate is fake or forged, only domicile certificate produced by the petitioner does not bear the digital signature of the issuing authority. Thus, it is clear from both these conditions that though the certificates are essential at the time of appointment, but possession of certificate before cut off date is not a precondition. The respondent authorities did not consider this aspect of the matter and have wrongly denied the appointment to the petitioner for Patwari training. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner for Patwari training. The respondent authorities did not consider this aspect of the matter and have wrongly denied the appointment to the petitioner for Patwari training. 22. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner for Patwari training. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits except monetary benefits and his seniority be fixed as per merit list in OBC category above the respondent No.4. Let this exercise be concluded by the respondent authorities within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.