ORDER : MUNNURI LAXMAN, J. 1. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsels for both the parties, the matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for final selection to the post of Medical Officer. 3. The facts of the case disclose that the petitioner had applied for the post of Medical Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.05.2024. At the time of submission of application form, the petitioner has submitted a certificate dated 08.03.2016 in respect of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the requisite certificate for the State Services. Subsequently, the petitioner has produced an affidavit undertaking to produce OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate at the time of verification of the documents. The certificate was required to be issued by the State Authorities for claiming reservations under OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category before issuance of final selection list. Despite of submission of such a certificate and affidavit in accordance with the requirements, her name was not found in the final selection list for the post of Medical Officer. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition. 4. The case of the respondents is that the requisite certificate and the affidavit submitted by the petitioner were not in consonance with the requirements/conditions of the Circulars. According to the respondents, as per the advertisement itself, all the eligibility criteria are required to be fulfilled at the time of submission of application form. By virtue of the Circulars, the relaxation of submitting the requisite certificate along with affidavit is required to be submitted by fulfilling the conditions of the Circulars. When they found that the petitioner has submitted the requisite certificate and affidavit without fulfilling the conditions of the Circulars, her name was not included in the final select list. Further the case of the respondents is that the affidavit produced by the petitioner was not found to be in terms of the requirements of the Circulars, as such, her case was not considered for inclusion in the final select/merit list. 5. Heard both the sides. 6. Further the case of the respondents is that the affidavit produced by the petitioner was not found to be in terms of the requirements of the Circulars, as such, her case was not considered for inclusion in the final select/merit list. 5. Heard both the sides. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not produced the requisite certificate of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) issued by the State Government at the time of submission of application form. However, she submitted the certificate of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) issued by the competent authority for the Central Government services. 7. It is also not in dispute that there are two Circulars (dated 02.01.2022 and 17.10.2022) issued by the State Government in this regard. The Circulars do not specifically mentioned the stage at which, the subsequent certificate can be produced and the Circulars also requires that when a certificate is produced subsequent to the date of the submission of application form, an affidavit is required to be filed. The affidavit must contain the facts to the effect that for claiming the reservation under the eligibility criteria for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer), the requisite status contain in the certificate submitted by the candidate was the same status on the date of submission/filing of the application form. The second condition is that there must be an undertaking in the affidavit to be given by the candidate to the effect that if the requirements as mentioned in the affidavit were found to be incorrect, his/her appointment shall be liable to be rejected/cancelled. 8. This Court has an occasion to consider the requirements and interpretation of the Circulars in the case of Vibha Daroliya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8003/2025, decided on 19.09.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 19.09.2025 reads as follows:- “11. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the advertisement took cognizance of both the Circular dated 20.01.2022 and the Circular dated 17.10.2022. The Circular of 20.01.2022 clearly states that to avail the benefit of reservation, the applicant is required to produce a certificate issued by the competent authority prior to the last date for submitting the application, and eligibility for reservation must be based on that certificate alone. The Circular of 20.01.2022 clearly states that to avail the benefit of reservation, the applicant is required to produce a certificate issued by the competent authority prior to the last date for submitting the application, and eligibility for reservation must be based on that certificate alone. However, the Circular dated 17.10.2022 partially relaxed the strict requirements of the previous Circular by allowing applicants to submit a certificate issued by the competent authority after the last date for application submission. When such a certificate is produced, the applicant is also required to submit an affidavit confirming that he/she was eligible as on the last date for submission of the application. The affidavit must also include an undertaking that if it is found that the applicant was not eligible on the last date as stated, the authorities shall be entitled to cancel the appointment. 12. From a reading of both the Circulars, it is clear that when a new caste certificate is produced, which was issued subsequent to the last date for submission of the application, such a certificate must be filed along with an affidavit. Furthermore, this certificate can only be allowed to be submitted up to the date fixed for document verification. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not obtain the certificate by the date fixed for document verification. The Circulars are silent regarding the stage at which a subsequently issued certificate can be produced along with the affidavit. The contents of the affidavit, as required by the Circular, include an undertaking that the appointment may be canceled if the facts stated in the affidavit are found to be incorrect. This implies that the new caste certificate and affidavit should be at least filed before the publication of the final selection list. 13. In the present case, the final selection list was published on 24.03.2025. The petitioner obtained the new certificate on14.09.2023. However, the affidavit submitted by the petitioner does not specify the date on which the certificate was uploaded. It only states that the certificate was obtained on 14.09.2023 and it was immediately uploaded. The pleadings of the respondents are also silent regarding the date on which the certificate was uploaded. The inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the provisional selection list published on 05.07.2024 shows her name at serial No. 1560 under the OBC non-creamy layer category with a score of 53.253%. The pleadings of the respondents are also silent regarding the date on which the certificate was uploaded. The inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the provisional selection list published on 05.07.2024 shows her name at serial No. 1560 under the OBC non-creamy layer category with a score of 53.253%. This inclusion gives an inference that the certificate was submitted prior to the preparation of the provisional list. However, it is subsequent to the date of document verification. By the date of verification, the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 25.08.2023, undertaking to produce the caste certificate as soon as she obtained it, since she had applied for the certificate on22.08.2023. It appears that the petitioner’s name was included based on this affidavit. 14. The requirement of the Circular dated 17.10.2022 is that in the event a certificate is issued by the competent authority subsequent to the last date for submission of the application, the applicant must file an affidavit specifically containing an averment to the effect that the applicant was eligible as on the last date for submitting the application to claim reservation under the special category. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has produced two affidavits—one dated 25.08.2023 and another dated 08.01.2025. However, neither affidavit contains the required averment that the petitioner was eligible as on the last date for submission of the application, nor do they include the undertaking enable the appointing authority to cancel the appointment if the contents of the affidavit are found to be factually incorrect. The two affidavits do not reflect compliance with the requirement to file such an affidavit along with the new certificate produced for consideration. Thus, the petitioner has also failed to comply with the requirements of the Circular. The petitioner ought to have filed the affidavit at least by the date of publication of the merit list. In the absence of such compliance, the petitioner is not entitled to question the rejection of her candidature in the final selection list. The rejection of the petitioner due to non-compliance with the requirements of the advertisement and the conditions of the Circular cannot be found at fault. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.” 9. In the present case, the petitioner has produced the certificate of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) subsequent to the date fixed for verification of the documents. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.” 9. In the present case, the petitioner has produced the certificate of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) subsequent to the date fixed for verification of the documents. However, the requisite certificate along with such an affidavit was required to be filed before publication of the final selection list. The requirement of the Circulars clearly mandate that there shall be an averment in the affidavit to the effect that on the date of filing the application form, the petitioner is fulfilling the criteria of eligibility of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer). The certificate is silent with regard to these averments. This Court has already taken a view in the case of Vibha Daroliya (supra) that non-fulfillment of the requirements of the advertisements and the conditions of the Circular enabling the Government for non-inclusion of the candidate’s name in the final select list cannot be questioned. Therefore, in the present case, non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the final select list cannot be challenged and entitle the petitioner to question the rejection of her candidature in the final selection list. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Samira Bano Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8229/2025, decided on 20.05.2025 wherein, it was held that, “when once the Department permitted the other selected candidate to file documents subsequently, how could the same not apply to the present petitioner, is incomprehensible. Any State instrumentality cannot be permitted to discriminate between the candidates standing on an equal footing. The petitioner, who had already obtained and furnished the requisite certificate on 18.09.2023, cannot be put to a disadvantageous position in contrast to the candidates who were permitted to submit documents even after 05.07.29024”. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies on the decision is of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jyoti Verma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Anr. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13971/2023, decided on 01.10.2024. The relevant part of the order dated 01.10.2024 reads as follows:- “12. The petitioner has brought on record the application dated 17th September 2022 which she logged for a fresh caste certificate. The Rajasthan High Court & Anr. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13971/2023, decided on 01.10.2024. The relevant part of the order dated 01.10.2024 reads as follows:- “12. The petitioner has brought on record the application dated 17th September 2022 which she logged for a fresh caste certificate. Both the caste certificates issued on 22nd September 2022 and dated 30th June 2023 are also on the record. The respondents are not questioning the genuineness of these documents. The petitioner belongs to “OBC- NCL” category is also not in dispute. In “Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Sub. Services Selection Bd. & Anr.” reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the controversy as to depriving a candidate appointment on the ground that he furnished wrong caste certificate. The judgment in “Ram Kumar Gijroya” has been affirmed by a larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Karan Singh Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.”- (SLP(C)No.14948/2016) and that shall be binding on all Courts including the High Courts. Indeed, the caste of a candidate cannot be changed and a mere mistake in the caste certificate shall not dis-entitle the candidate to seek appointment. The documents produced by the petitioner are in the nature of proof of belonging to a particular caste category and every infraction of the stipulation relating to submission of a certificate should not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature. The respondents have however relied on the provisions under clause (vii) and clause (ix) under paragraph 5 of the Advertisement which provide that a candidate is required to furnish the caste certificate issued on or before 22nd September 2022 and that should not be more than one year prior to the last date of submission of online application. No doubt there can be a condition requiring a candidate to produce the caste certificate issued latest by the last date of submission of online application. However, where it is shown that the candidate belongs to a particular caste category and a certificate is produced before the last date of verification the stipulations under clause (vii) and clause (ix) cannot be made aground to deny appointment to a meritorious candidate. It is well remembered that to invalid merit factor would be to make the procedure superior and prevail over the essence of any public employment. It is well remembered that to invalid merit factor would be to make the procedure superior and prevail over the essence of any public employment. To hold the stipulations like clause (vii) and clause (ix) mandatory would not be practicable and, in fact, against the Constitutional provisions that enjoin upon the High Court to adhere to merit selection in public employment. 13. While considering the candidature of a candidate under the reserved category the authority has to keep in mind the Constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India which enables the employer to provide for reservation. In “Valsamma Paul” the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the object of providing reservation to SC/ST and educationally and socially backward class of society is to make the candidates belonging to such category able to compete with the general category candidates so that the Constitutional mandate engraved in the preamble, Articles 14, 15, 16 and Directive Principles of the State policy under the Constitution of India is achieved and equal opportunity to all sections of the society is provided in public employment. Having regard to the merit of the petitioner who secured more than cut off marks in “OBC-NCL” category, we are of the opinion that the decision by the respondents not to offer appointment to the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law; cut off marks in “OBC-NCL” was 304.4644615. 14. The writ Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the Court of law and equity. The concept of equity has its roots in the principles of justice and good conscience. Many countries have given up adherence to the strict rules of law and adopted the principles of equity in order to avoid unwarranted hardship to the people. Aristotle once remarked that where the written statute was found ill-equipped to address the particular circumstance of the case but pointed to a just outcome equity shall step in because adherence to the written law may lead to an unjust outcome. In India also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose of equity jurisdiction is to prevent injustice and to promote justice. In “M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.” (2020) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that although equity is not identical to strict justice it is nevertheless a kind of justice. In India also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose of equity jurisdiction is to prevent injustice and to promote justice. In “M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.” (2020) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that although equity is not identical to strict justice it is nevertheless a kind of justice. The High Court is therefore required to keep in mind that equity shall over power technicality where human justice is at stake [refer, “Charles K.Skariya v. Dr. C. Mathew” (1980) 2 SCC 152]. In view of the facts, indisputable facts, there are certainly equitable considerations to support the claim of the petitioner to seek appointment.” 12. It is also apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. : Civil Appeal No. 5233/2025, decided on 15.05.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 15.05.2025 reads as follows:- “13. We may initiate our discussion by first referring to this Court’s decision in Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah and Ors23. The question that was raised is whether, the West Bengal Public Service Commission was justified in considering the 1st respondent as a general candidate for recruitment in connection with a judicial service examination, instead of his claim of being a member of the Scheduled Tribe community. The advertisement stipulated that in order to obtain the benefit of reservation, the requisite certificate had to be issued by the competent authority as specified in the stated enactment and SCs/STs Welfare Department Order No. 261- TW/EC/MR-103/94 dated 6th April, 1995. Instead of producing a certificate issued by the competent authority, the 1st respondent produced a certificate issued by the Director of the Backward Classes Welfare Department certifying him as a member of the Scheduled Tribe community; hence, such certificate was ignored and he was considered to be a general candidate. The 1st respondent was fortunate enough to succeed in the two tiers before the High Court at Calcutta, which directed the PSC to consider him as a ST candidate, fortune deserted him before this Court. It was held thus: “15. The 1st respondent was fortunate enough to succeed in the two tiers before the High Court at Calcutta, which directed the PSC to consider him as a ST candidate, fortune deserted him before this Court. It was held thus: “15. We find no error in the decision taken by the Commission in not entertaining the respondent’s application as a ST candidate since no certificate was produced from the competent authority, as provided under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. The information to the candidates (2013) 12 SCC 364 specifically stated that the candidates claiming to be SC/ST/BC must have a certificate from a competent authority specified in the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. No such certificate was produced from that competent authority by the respondent. Consequently, in the absence of the requisite certificate, the Commission was justified in treating him as a general category candidate. The first time the respondent produced the certificate from the competent authority was only when he appeared in the examination held on 30-7-2010, by that time he had obtained a certificate from the competent authority on 22-9-2009. Admittedly, at the time when the 2007 examination was held no such certificate was produced from the competent authority along with the application. Consequently, the respondent was treated as a general category candidate and hence he could not get appointment as judicial officer in the examination held in the year 2007. 16. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the specific legislation passed by the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly i.e. the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994, and the specific stipulation in the notification issued to the candidates, Guideline 10 of para 13 of Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ] is inapplicable, particularly to the facts of this case. The Act does not recognise the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal as a competent authority to issue the certificate. Therefore, the Commission was justified in not placing reliance on the certificate issued by the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. ... ”. (italics in original) 14. The Act does not recognise the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal as a competent authority to issue the certificate. Therefore, the Commission was justified in not placing reliance on the certificate issued by the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. ... ”. (italics in original) 14. What follows from the above decision is that irrespective of whether an aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like SC/ST/OBC, the status claimed by him for being accorded the benefit of reservation is per se not decisive. Such status has to be certified by the competent authority upon following due process and identification that the aspirant is what he claims to be. In Shrinivas Prasad Shah (supra), the requirement of production of a certificate from the competent authority was held to be mandatory in view of a statutory mandate. Although there is no such statutory mandate in the facts of the present case, the requirement in question is no less mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Once a process of recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment. There cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants. Non- compliance with the terms of the advertisement/ notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status by the selecting body/appointing authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same. Having regard thereto, the selecting body/appointing authority would be justified in not entertaining the application of an aspirant as a member of the community for whom reservations are permissible.” 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the omission in the affidavit is only simple that she failed to make mention that she has eligibility as on the last date of submission of the application form. 14. It is to be noted that the production of certificate is only for the purpose of proving the fact of having eligibility as on the date of issuance of the certificate. To take back the eligibility to the previous date, i.e., last date of making an application, the averment that she fulfilled the criteria of eligibility required to be mentioned in the affidavit but, omitted. This omission on the part of the candidate is very crucial; therefore, such omission cannot be merely said to be a formality. As such, the argument is required to be noted and rejected. 15. This omission on the part of the candidate is very crucial; therefore, such omission cannot be merely said to be a formality. As such, the argument is required to be noted and rejected. 15. All the requirements of the advertisement in respect of eligibility criteria have to be fulfilled by the candidates on the last date of submission of the application form; and admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has not produced the requisite certificate which was required to be submitted along with the application form as per the conditions of the advertisement. However, she has produced the requisite certificate subsequently for claiming reservation under the category of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) but such certificate was not issued by the competent authority of the State Government, as it was one of the conditions of the advertisement. The latest judgment in the case of Mohit Kumar (supra) clearly stipulates that it is a mandatory requirement of the advertisement that the candidates must fulfill the conditions of the advertisement on the last date of submission of the application form. Any relaxation in the conditions of the advertisement can be granted by the State Government by issuing the circulars with certain requirements and the requirements mentioned in the circular are required to be complied with. As seen in the present case, the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of the circulars and conditions of the advertisement. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the instant writ petition is dismissed 17. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.