ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of impugned letter dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure-12) whereby the petitioner’s application for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership stood rejected. 2. The facts are that in pursuance to Advertisement dated 14.12.2018, the petitioner applied on 27.12.2018 through online mode. The last date specified for submission of application was 12.01.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner applied in Other Backward Class (for short ‘OBC’) category. However, she did not possess a valid OBC certificate on the date of applying i.e. 27.12.2018. She applied for issuance of OBC certificate on 02.01.2019 and the same was issued to her on 28.01.2019. 3. A provisional list of selected candidates was issued by the respondent Corporation on 25.01.2020 and when called upon, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents including OBC certificate, on 03.02.2020. However, the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected on the count that she did not possess a valid OBC certificate on the date of submission of application i.e. 27.12.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Brochure governing the allotment of Dealership in question, the certificates/documents for Eligibility/Specific Eligibility criteria were required to be submitted by the selected candidates within ten days of the intimation. Further, additional ten days’ time was to be granted in case the selected candidate failed to submit the applicable certificate/document. It is only if the candidate failed to provide the requisite document within that additional time that his/her candidature could have been rejected. 5. Counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted all the requisite documents within a period of ten days of intimation to her and hence, her candidature could not have been rejected. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that it was specific condition as per the Brochure that all certificates/documents required for meeting the Eligibility/Specific Eligibility criteria ought to have been in possession of the applicant and valid as on the date of application. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess a valid OBC certificate on 27.12.2018, the date on which she applied and hence, OBC certificate as submitted by her on 03.02.2020 could not have been considered and her candidature was rightly rejected. 7. While relying upon Bombay High Court judgment in Swati vs. Government of India & Anr. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess a valid OBC certificate on 27.12.2018, the date on which she applied and hence, OBC certificate as submitted by her on 03.02.2020 could not have been considered and her candidature was rightly rejected. 7. While relying upon Bombay High Court judgment in Swati vs. Government of India & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 1319/2020 and CA No. 10142) decided on 29.09.2021, Counsel submitted that a candidate has to be eligible to apply for Retail Outlet Dealership on the date of application as per the Brochure of the Petroleum Company. 8. In rejoinder Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a specific clause appended to Note-1 of Clause-4 provides for grant of an additional ten days time in cases of Caste Validity Certificate. The incorporation of the said clause definitely is with an intent to grant additional ten days time to the selected candidate from the date of intimation. Meaning thereby, the certificate as submitted by the petitioner was clearly within the stipulated time and hence, ought to have been considered. 9. Learned counsel, further while relying upon Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754 submitted that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected simply on count of she not being in possession of a caste certificate on the date of application when she submitted the same within a period of ten days of intimation. 10. Heard the learned counsels. Perused the record. 11. For proper adjudication of the present dispute, the production of relevant clauses of the Brochure would be relevant. The Note appended to Note-4 of the Brochure reads as under:- “ Note: with regard to submission of documents by selected candidates: 1. All certificates/documents required for meeting Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on date of application. However, certificates issued by Directorate General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence, Government of India for Defense personnel can be of a date after the date of application but should be submitted within 10 days of intimation by Oil Company. Wherever Caste Validity certificate is required, the same shall be submitted by the selected candidate within additional 10 days of stipulated time specified by the concerned State Govt. Wherever Caste Validity certificate is required, the same shall be submitted by the selected candidate within additional 10 days of stipulated time specified by the concerned State Govt. for issuance of such certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate by the OMC). 2. In case certificates submitted by the applicants issued by various Govt. Officials are not as per the given formats, the applicants would not be made ineligible if the contents are as per Corporation’s requirements. 3. Applicable certificate/documents for Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria would be required to be submitted by the selected candidate within 10 days of intimation (after draw of lots/bidding process). Additional 10 days’ time shall be given in case the selected candidate fails to submit the applicable certificates/documents. In case the selected candidate fails to provide applicable certificates/documents within this time period, his/her candidature would be rejected under intimation through SMS/e-mail. 4. The selected candidate would be given opportunity to provide the rectified/corrected documents under rectifiable deficiency within 21 days’ time. If the selected candidate fails to provide the required corrected/rectified certificates/documents, within 21 days, his/her candidature would be rejected under intimation through SMS/e-mail.” 12. A conjoint reading above clause 1 and the proviso as appended to it, makes it crystal clear that although it is a requisite condition that the candidate ought to be in possession of the document required for meeting Eligibility/Specific Eligibility Criteria on the date of application, but then, in cases where a Caste Validity Certificate is required, it could have been submitted by the selected candidate within additional ten days of stipulated time specified by the concerned State Government for issuance of such certificate (from the date of intimation to the selected candidate by the OMC). 13. Further as per above Clause-3, even if a candidate fails to submit any requisite document within a period of ten days of intimation, he/she is entitled for additional ten days’ time. It is only on the failure to submit the requisite document within that additional period that the candidature can be rejected. Meaning thereby, any candidate not possessing the requisite document is entitled to submit the same subsequently although within a period of ten days of the intimation. 14. It is only on the failure to submit the requisite document within that additional period that the candidature can be rejected. Meaning thereby, any candidate not possessing the requisite document is entitled to submit the same subsequently although within a period of ten days of the intimation. 14. In the specific opinion of this Court, the insertion of a specific provision for the Caste Validity Certificate in the Brochure definitely is with an intent to provide additional ten days time to a selected candidate keeping into consideration the fact that the said certificate might take time in issuance by the competent authority. 15. So far as Clause-1 requiring the candidate to be in possession of requisite documents on the date of application is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the same definitely would not apply in the case of Caste Validity Certificate, as the same has been inserted as an exception to the said clause in the Brochure itself. Had that not been the intention, no specific clause for Caste Validity Certificate would have been inserted. 16. Further, as held by the Delhi High Court in Pushpa vs. Government, NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2009 SCC Online Del 281 and affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), in order to be considered for a reserved post, the requirement is that a person should belong to that category. Therein the Court observed that if a person is of a Scheduled Caste, he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by the competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact, which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion made by the candidate that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and act thereon by giving benefit to such candidate for his belonging to Scheduled Caste category. The Court therein further observed as under:- “… … … It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.” 17. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.” 17. Applying above ratio to the present matter, it is not the case of the respondent Corporation that the petitioner did not belong to OBC category or that the certificate as submitted by her was not valid. The only reason for rejection of petitioner’s candidature was that she did not possess the said certificate on the date of application. In the specific opinion of this Court, the said reason is totally in contravention to ratio laid down in Ram Kumar Gijroya’s case (supra). The impugned letter dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure-12) therefore deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. The writ petition is allowed . The respondent Corporation is directed to consider the OBC certificate as submitted by the petitioner and if she is otherwise found eligible, she be allotted the Retail Outlet Dealership within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the present order. 19. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.