JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition prays for an issuance of appropriate direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 08.01.2019 (as it relates to the petitioner, annexure 6) by which the application for recruitment of the petitioner to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher has been rejected pursuant to advertisement no. 21/2016. The petitioner further prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider an appointment for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher after setting aside the reasons of rejection dated 08.01.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide annexure 6, the petitioner was asked to furnish the caste certificate. In compliance with the aforesaid letter, the petitioner furnished the caste certificate within the time which was mentioned in Annexure 6 but the case of the petitioner was not considered and was rejected as a result of which the petitioner was treated to be an unreserved candidate. He further submits that when the caste certificate was already produced before the J.S.S.C., even beyond the cut-off date, the same could not have been rejected. 4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the J.S.S.C. submits that the petitioner was treated to be an unreserved candidate as the petitioner failed to furnish the caste certificate within the cut-off date, i.e., 25.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the caste certificate, issued by the Appropriate Authority, but admittedly the same was issued after the cut-off date. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the facts are admitted in this case. The petitioner applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher pursuant to advertisement no. 21/2016. The last date for submitting all the documents including the caste certificate was 25.04.2017. The petitioner admittedly, did not submit the caste certificate within aforesaid date and the petitioner is treated as unreserved candidate which is apparent from Annexure 6. Though the show cause was issued to the petitioner but according to me, it was only for the purpose as to why not he or she should be treated as a candidate in the General Category. 6. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Though the show cause was issued to the petitioner but according to me, it was only for the purpose as to why not he or she should be treated as a candidate in the General Category. 6. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Nutan Indwar @Nutan Indwar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases in LPA No 64 of 2020 has clearly dealt with this issue and has held that the judgment of Ram Kumar Gijroya versus Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 cannot be applied irrespective of the fact, nor it can be applied if the Caste Certificate is not produced on or before the cut-off date. The Full Bench of this Court also took into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divya versus Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 448 wherein it has been held 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. It has also been held by the Full Bench that Caste Certificate should be in a proper format. Paragraphs 42 and 49 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:- 42. We hold that once a specific format and the authority to issue certificate has been prescribed, the same has to be followed strictly. The prescription of a format or designating any authority cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the prescription made is applicable to all concerned without any discrimination. The caste certificate, which is not in the prescribed format and has not been issued by the authority, as prescribed, cannot be considered. What would be the status of those candidates, who produce such certificates, which is not in a prescribed format as mandated by the Rules or advertisement, has already been taken note of and has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125. 49. 49. Taking a cue from Mohit Kumar (supra), it is clear that if a candidate furnishes caste certificate in the format prescribed for employment in the Central Government, for an application seeking appointment under the State Government, the same cannot be said to be in a proper format and his claim for reservation can be rejected. 7. The contention of the petitioner that he has submitted the caste certificate though after the cut-off date and which was also issued after the cut-off date, should have been accepted. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court. The Full Bench in Dr. Nutan Indwar (supra) has held that if a cut-off date is mentioned in rules, the same is sacrosanct. If there is no cut-off date mentioned in the rules, it is the cut-off date which is prescribed in the advertisement which will become sacrosanct and if the cut-off date is also not fixed in the advertisement, then the last date of submission of the application should be treated to be the cut-off date. 8. In the aforesaid judgment three questions which were framed are as follows:- A. Whether “Ram Kumar Gijroya” must be applied in every case irrespective of the facts of the case, provided the caste certificate is produced at the time of verification of the documents? B. Whether Clause 9(gha) in the Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 and a similar stipulation in the other advertisements run contrary to the Constitutional mandate under Article 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India? C. Whether providing a condition in the advertisement that the caste certificate in the proper format should be in possession of the candidate on the last date for making the application failing which his/her candidature shall be considered under unreserved category is an exercise of excessive delegation of power and/or beyond the powers conferred upon the Commission? 9. The analysis of question A and C is in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Full Bench, which reads as follows:- 39. 9. The analysis of question A and C is in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Full Bench, which reads as follows:- 39. To summarise, from what has been held above, it is clear that:- (a) If a cut-off date is fixed for submitting documents by the Rules, the same has to be followed and in absence of any cut-off date in the Rules, the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement has to be strictly followed and if there is no cut-off date in the advertisement also, then the last date of application should be treated to be the cut-off date. The cut-off date is sacrosanct and the conditions and eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement must be read in harmony with the cut-off date. The cut-off date cannot be changed nor any authority can impliedly shift the cut- off date by giving relaxation to fulfill a criteria, which ought to have been fulfilled by the candidate within the said cut-off date. It is also clear that a person, who acquires prescribed qualification after the cut-off date is not eligible to be considered and they cannot get any preferential treatment. Possessing a valid caste certificate / necessary certificate issued by the competent authorities in a prescribed format on the cut-off date is the prescribed qualification. The analysis of question B is in paragraph 52 of the judgment of the Full Bench, which reads as follows:- 52. The off shoot of the analysis and the judgments is that a candidate must adhere to the conditions and requirements, which have been prescribed in the Rules. There cannot be any deviation. Certificate, which has been prescribed to be furnished in a proper format should be in the format as prescribed. Similarly, if an authority has been prescribed to issue the said certificate, the certificate issued by the said authority only will be accepted. Certificate issued by any other authority, which is not in the format cannot be accepted. Further, Article 335 of the Constitution of India has no application in this matter, inasmuch by prescribing an authority and the format, the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Other Backward Class as a whole is not excluded from getting the benefit of reservation. It is only an individual in that group, who does not qualify or does not possess the requisite qualification / certificate is debarred. It is only an individual in that group, who does not qualify or does not possess the requisite qualification / certificate is debarred. Disqualifying an individual within the class cannot be said to be deprivation of entire class. 10. Ultimately the answer to the reference is at para 53 which is as follows:- 53. In view of what has been observed and discussed above and in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases as cited hereinbefore, answer to Reference Questions are as follows: - (A) Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) cannot be applied irrespective of the facts of the case nor can it be applied if the caste certificate is not produced on or before the cut-off date as prescribed either by the Rules governing the employment or by the advertisement or in case if no date is prescribed, in either of the two, then on the last date of submission of application. (B) The Clause 9(gha) of the advertisement, which stipulates for obtaining caste certificate from the authority prescribed and how a candidate shall be treated in absence of such certificate, by no means violates Article 14, Article 16 or Article 335 of the Constitution of India. (C) Fixing/providing a condition in the advertisement that the caste certificate in a proper format should be in possession of the candidate on the last date of making the application cannot be said to be in exercise of excessive delegation of power neither it is beyond the power conferred upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission/Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Further, in absence of possession of the caste certificate in proper format on the last date of making the application or the cut-off date prescribed in the Rules or that in the Advertisement, treating the candidate as a candidate of un-reserved category is also not illegal nor the same can be considered to be an exercise of excessive delegation of power neither it is beyond the power conferred upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission / Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 11. In this case, admittedly the petitioner initially filed the caste certificate which is dated 19.03.2017 but the same was issued by the Circle Officer. Though, the said certificate is within the cut-off but the same was not issued by the Appropriate Authority, as admittedly any officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer who is the Appropriate Authority. 11. In this case, admittedly the petitioner initially filed the caste certificate which is dated 19.03.2017 but the same was issued by the Circle Officer. Though, the said certificate is within the cut-off but the same was not issued by the Appropriate Authority, as admittedly any officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer who is the Appropriate Authority. The certificate has to be issued by a person not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer and the Circle Officer is definitely below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer. Further, the certificate issued by the Appropriate Authority is dated 11.01.2019 which is after the cut-off date. 12. Further, the Full Bench in paragraph no. 42 of the judgment has held that if a specific format for the caste certificate and the Appropriate Authority to issue the certificate has been prescribed, the same has to be strictly followed. Thus, in this case when the certificate which was filed by the petitioner within the cut-off date, was admittedly issued by the person which was not the Appropriate Authority, the said certificate could not have been considered. 13. The second certificate which the petitioner has filed though it was issued by the Appropriate Authority, but the same was beyond the cut-off date. He has filed the certificate in 2019 but the same was issued also in the year 2019, dated 11.01.2019. 14. Once it has been held that the cut-off date is sacrosanct and no document can be filed after the cut-off date, this certificate cannot be taken into consideration. Further, so far as extension of the cut-off date is concerned, Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Nutan Indwar (Supra) has held that no authority has right to extend the cut-off date. It has been held that extending this such types of cut-off dates is counter productive and runs contrary to the principle of fairness in the selection process. This may also give discretionary power to the authority which is not vested by law and the said discretion can be exercised arbitrarily with mala fide. It has also been held that if the concept of cut-off date is given a go-bye, and the candidates are allowed to furnish the requisite certificates beyond the cut-off date, it will amount to give undue advantage to them and similarly will cause hardship and innumerable prejudice to the non- applicants who has adhered to the cut-off date. It has also been held that if the concept of cut-off date is given a go-bye, and the candidates are allowed to furnish the requisite certificates beyond the cut-off date, it will amount to give undue advantage to them and similarly will cause hardship and innumerable prejudice to the non- applicants who has adhered to the cut-off date. Paragraph no. 25 of the Full Bench judgment in Dr. Nutan Indwar (Supra) is quoted hereinunder:- “25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to decide the issue of impermissibility of selective relaxation. It has been held that the determination of eligibility cannot be left uncertain till the final stage of selection, as the same would lead to uncertainty. In this context, it is to be noted that any process cannot be kept open for an indefinite period. This will lead to uncertainty, anomaly and will also give rise to inequality amongst the equals also. This opens scope for arbitrariness, which is definitely counterproductive and runs contrary to the principle of fairness in selection process. This may also give discretionary power to the authority, which is not vested by the law and the said discretion can at times be exercised arbitrarily or with malafide. If the concept of cut-off date is given a go bye and candidates are allowed to furnish requisite certificate beyond the cutoff date, it will amount to giving undue advantage to them and similarly will cause hardship and irreparable prejudice to the non-applicants, who by adhering to the cut-off date, could not or did not apply due to want of necessary certificate, as on that date. Allowing the persons to furnish this certificate beyond the cutoff date would amount to giving premium to them over those candidates, who being aware of the requirements, did not apply due to want of requisite certificate on the cutoff date. A person, who does not qualify the conditions, cannot be given any advantage nor can any premium be given to him”. 15. Considering what has been held above, since the petitioner’s first certificate was not issued by the Competent Authority and the second certificate was beyond the cut-off date, the petitioner was rightly considered to be a candidate in Unreserved Category. No relief can be granted to this petitioner.