JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. The instant matter has been assigned to this Bench and that is how the instant case has been listed before this Bench. 2 . Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-J.P.S.C. 3 . The prayer in this petition has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Geologist under the Mines and Geology Department of the State of Jharkhand in the reserved category of scheduled tribe. 4 . Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was an advertisement issued by the respondent Jharkhand Public Service Commission [JPSC] as Adv. No.28 of 2012 for the post of Geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology, Jharkhand. The petitioner applied for the post and submitted all the required certificates along with the form. He submits that the petitioner belongs to the reserved category and he has produced the caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer with an undertaking as and when the certificate of caste issued by the S.D.O will be deposited later on. He submits that the S.D.O has issued the caste certificate on 08.06.2012 and in spite of that the petitioner has not been appointed and the petitioner has been considered in the general category as the caste certificate by the S.D.O was received belatedly. 5 . Learned counsel for the respondent J.P.S.C submits that the last date of receiving of all the documents was 30.04.2012 whereas the caste certificate issued by the S.D.O was issued on 08.06.2012, i.e., after the last date of submitting the documents. He submits that in view of that the case of the petitioner was considered under the general category and he was not treated in the reserved category. He further submits that the process of appointment has already been completed in the year 2013 itself and according to him, now this petition has become infructuous. 6 . It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not submitted the caste certificate issued by the S.D.O in terms of the advertisement and the last date of submission of the documents was 30.04.2012. 7 . 6 . It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not submitted the caste certificate issued by the S.D.O in terms of the advertisement and the last date of submission of the documents was 30.04.2012. 7 . This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Divya Vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 1 SCC 448 and paragraph nos. 1, 11, 14, 16, 22, 27, 35, 36, 37, 40, 51, 61, 62, 63, 64 of the judgment in the case is quoted hereinbelow: “1. These writ petitions raise questions involving the interpretation of the Office Memoranda (“OM”) dated 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 prescribing the eligibility for the Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) category. Additionally, they also involve the interpretation of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 (“CSE-2022 Rules”), particularly, Rules 13, 27 and 28 thereof. The petitioners, for diverse reasons, were denied the benefit of the EWS category by the Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) for the Civil Services Examination of the year 2022. Was UPSC justified in denying them the benefit of reservation under the EWS category, is the main question involved. 11. The applicable date for possession in this case is 22-2-2022. This is because after the promulgation of the Rules, the third respondent Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) issued the examination notice on 2-2-2022 and the last date for submission of the application was 22-2- 2022 and the time of deadline was 6.00 p.m. on that day. 14. What is clear from the above is, before the closing date of application, the candidate has to be in possession of the requisite 5 certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 and before the Main Examination, the candidate is expected to upload the certificate. 16. For these reasons, the petitioner states that she was unable to obtain the certificate for Financial Year 2020-2021 before 22-2-2022. It is also admitted by her that, by 13-12-2022, she was able to obtain the EWS certificate for Financial Year 2021-2022 but was not able to obtain the EWS certificate for 2020-2021 till 1-6-2023. 22. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition since she claims that she had secured All India Rank (“AIR”) 105 and if she were to be considered in the EWS category, her cut-off would qualify her, for admission to the CSE-2022 in the IAS cadre. 22. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition since she claims that she had secured All India Rank (“AIR”) 105 and if she were to be considered in the EWS category, her cut-off would qualify her, for admission to the CSE-2022 in the IAS cadre. In the writ petition, she has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing email dated 30-5-2023 issued by Respondent l; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to retain the petitioner in the economically weaker section (“EWS”) category and accept the EWS certificate submitted by the petitioner for Financial Year 2020- 2021, for the purpose of recruitment pursuant to Civil Services Examination 2022; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring Rule 13, Rule 27(3) and Rule 28 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022, to the extent that it prescribes that candidates must be in possession of the EWS certificate as on the closing date of the application for Preliminary Examination, to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being arbitrary;” 27. It is averred that the petitioner was not the only candidate whose category was changed to general, due to non- submission of I&AC based on the income of FY 2020-2021 issued beyond the closing date i.e. 22-2- 2022. It is averred that, as many as 36 candidates, who had applied under the EWS, were not treated as EWS as they failed to upload the valid I&AC with their DAF-I. According to UPSC, out of the 36 candidates, the category of 22 candidates was changed from EWS to general as they had qualified the CSE-2022 on general standards and with regard to 14 candidates, who failed to qualify, their candidature was cancelled. 35. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once their categorisation as an EWS was not in dispute, mere inability to have the certificate as of 22-2-2022 should not operate to their prejudice. According to them, the delayed submission did not affect the category-wise allocation process at any stage and that there was no rationale for insisting on the certificate to be dated before the cut-off i.e. 22-2-2022, namely, the last day for submission of the application for Preliminary Examination. According to them, the delayed submission did not affect the category-wise allocation process at any stage and that there was no rationale for insisting on the certificate to be dated before the cut-off i.e. 22-2-2022, namely, the last day for submission of the application for Preliminary Examination. They relied on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742, Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472, Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 588 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341, Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305, Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734, Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 318, Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265 and Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 809. Additionally, and quite feebly, a contention was also raised that the CSE Rules, 2022 have no statutory flavour and are not enforceable in law. 36. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the Union of India and Mr Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for Respondent 3 UPSC, thoroughly and painstakingly countered the submissions of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the present was a case where there was a clear prescription in the form of rules. The learned counsel relied on OM dated 19-1-2019, 31-1-2019 and Rules 13, 27 and 28 of the CSE-2022 Rules to contend that eligibility is acquired as an EWS candidate only after the candidate meets the criteria issued by the Central Government and is in possession of the requisite I&AC based on the income for FY 2020- 2021; that under Rule 28, the candidates should be in possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim by the closing date of the application viz. 22-2-2022; that for the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit DAF-I along with scanned documents in support within prescribed time for the same; any delay in submission of the DAF-I or documents in support beyond the prescribed date was not allowed and would lead to cancellation of the candidature. 37. 22-2-2022; that for the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit DAF-I along with scanned documents in support within prescribed time for the same; any delay in submission of the DAF-I or documents in support beyond the prescribed date was not allowed and would lead to cancellation of the candidature. 37. The learned counsel distinguished [Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305, Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 734 and Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC, (2017) 11 SCC 276 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 318] by stating that in those cases the candidates, who were given relief, possessed the eligibility before the cut-off date and the issue was only about submission of proof. The learned counsel relied on Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 and UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116 to reinforce their submissions and distinguished [Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 809] as having been confined to its special facts for the extraordinary Covid year. The learned counsel submitted that Ram Kumar Gijroya [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] was also clearly distinguishable and that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from it. 40. Countering the submission of the petitioners in the other two petitions, the learned counsel states that the case was squarely covered by [UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116] and if each candidate is allowed to come with clarifications/corrigenda, there will be no end to the selection process and the sanctity of the rule would completely stand negated. The learned counsel contended that any selective relaxation would cause enormous injustice to the non- applicants, who in compliance with the rule would not have applied for the reason that they did not possess the 7 eligibility certificate on the last date for submission. The learned counsel contended that any selective relaxation would cause enormous injustice to the non- applicants, who in compliance with the rule would not have applied for the reason that they did not possess the 7 eligibility certificate on the last date for submission. To reinforce the submission, reliance was placed on [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 and Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] wherein it was held that deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives, among others, who could have competed for the post. So, contending they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 51. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application. [Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 639; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 19] 61. The strong reliance placed on [Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] 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 cutoff 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 crystallises only on the issuance of the certificate and on possession of the certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date. 62. Moreover, unlike the present, there was no contention or issue raised in that case that eligibility enures or crystallises only on the issuance of the certificate and on possession of the certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date. 62. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742 is also directly in conflict with the judgment of three Hon’ble Judges in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 wherein in para 6, it was held as under : (Chander Shekhar case [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] , SCC pp. 21-22) “6. … So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone is a well- established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had 8 not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis.” 63. Apart from all of this, the correctness of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742 was referred to a threeJudge Bench in Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472. Apart from all of this, the correctness of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742 was referred to a threeJudge Bench in Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472. A perusal of para six of the referral order clearly shows that the Bench was echoing the ratio of the three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 though there is no express reference to the said case. However, when the matter came before a three-Judge Bench, the reference was not answered and even after noticing that Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742 covered Karn Singh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 2 SCC 716 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472 (two-Judges), the Court, however, denied relief to Karn Singh Yadav, the petitioner by holding that since the appellant was never appointed to the post at that length of time it was not possible to grant any relief to the appellant. Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 742 is clearly distinguishable. 64. Be that as it may, we are bound by the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 and we follow the said judgment and reiterate the principle laid down therein. It is also interesting to note that even in Deepak Yadav v. UPSC, (2022) 14 SCC 448 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 809, a judgment, strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the principle in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 has been reiterated. However, because of what the Court called an abnormal and cataclysmal year, an exception was made due to the ongoing pandemic, lockdown and restrictions imposed thereof. In Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265, no rules like the ones present in this case are shown to have existed. In the present case, there are clear prescriptions as to eligibility, as has been discussed hereinabove.” 8 . In Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 18 SCC 242 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 265, no rules like the ones present in this case are shown to have existed. In the present case, there are clear prescriptions as to eligibility, as has been discussed hereinabove.” 8 . In view of above, the issue in question is set at rest, on the basis of above case wherein it has categorically been held that once the eligibility criteria and the date before which the certificate should be possessed and the date before the certificate is submitted is not fulfilled later on it cannot be allowed and in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another , (2016) 4 SCC 754 . 9 . Thus, the subject matter of the present case is fully covered in light of above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the appointment process is already over in the year 2013 itself. 10 . In view of above, no case of interference is made out. 11 . W.P.(S) No.4266 of 2013 is dismissed. 12 . Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.