ORDER S.G.PANDIT, J. The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 06.01.2022 in Application No.4890/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting her application, questioning her non-selection to the post of Female Supervisor in the Department of Women and Child Development is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner vide Notification dated 05.10.2016 applied for the post of Female Supervisor in the Department of Women and Child Development claiming reservation under category 2A. The petitioner was called for verification of documents and interview was conducted on 10.01.2018. The petitioner is said to have secured 45% marks. The provisional select list of Female Supervisors was published on 28.11.2018 and the name of the applicant/petitioner was not found, whereas, the names of respondents No.3 to 7 found place in the provisional select list, who were less meritorious than the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have filed her objections to the said provisional select list. However, final select list was published on 26.02.2019. Even in the final select list also, name of the petitioner was not found. The petitioner was issued with an endorsement dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure-A11) stating that the petitioner has scored less marks than the cut-off marks, determined for eligible candidates under reserved category. Questioning the said endorsement as well as non- selection of petitioner’s candidature for the post of Female Supervisor, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.4890/2019. The Tribunal, under impugned order dated 06.01.2022 rejected petitioner’s application holding that Reservation Certificate has been obtained much later than the last date prescribed, and further observed that the petitioner’s candidature was rightly considered under general merit category. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.B.S.Murali for petitioner, Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned AGA for respondent No.1; Sri.Muhammed Shamil, learned counsel for respondent No.2; Sri.Sameer, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri.Vijay Kumar G Bagoji, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri.Anantharam C., learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.B.S.Murali would submit that action of the respondent-Selecting Authority i.e., second respondent, in not selecting the petitioner by considering her under category-2A is wholly erroneous and illegal. He submits that the petitioner had claimed reservation under category 2A. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.B.S.Murali would submit that action of the respondent-Selecting Authority i.e., second respondent, in not selecting the petitioner by considering her under category-2A is wholly erroneous and illegal. He submits that the petitioner had claimed reservation under category 2A. Along with the application, the petitioner had also produced Annexure-G/Caste and Income Certificate dated 26.07.2008 and subsequently, the petitioner also produced Annexure-A5/Caste and Income Certificate dated 09.01.2018 obtained subsequent to the recruitment notification. It is his submission that the Selecting Authority ought to have considered both Caste Certificates and ought to have considered petitioner’s candidature under category 2A for selection to the post of Female Supervisor in the department of Women and Child Development. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to take note of the Certificates said to have been produced by the petitioner before the Selecting Authority. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the decision cited before it and particularly without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v/s DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 proceeded to dismiss the application. Learned counsel would submit that in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Community though produced their Caste Certificates later shall be considered for selection as there would be no change in their caste status. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short “KPSC”) would support the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Muhammad Shameel appearing for KPSC would submit that the Caste and Income Certificate produced at Annexure-G dated 26.07.2008 had expired. Learned counsel referring to the Karnataka Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 and Rules made thereunder would submit that the validity of the Caste and Income Certificate would be five years and Caste Certificate in respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe would be for unlimited period. As such, the Caste and Income Certificates produced by the petitioner in support of her claim under reservation category 2A had expired. As such, the Caste and Income Certificates produced by the petitioner in support of her claim under reservation category 2A had expired. Moreover, he submits that subsequent certificate obtained on 09.01.2018 is much later to the last date for submitting the application i.e., 07.11.2016 which cannot be considered. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to: Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 8. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner applied for the post of Female Supervisor in the department of Women and Child Development, claiming reservation under category 2A. Along with the application, the petitioner appears to have produced Caste and Income Certificate dated 26.07.2008 (Annexure-G) in support of her claim for reservation under category 2A. It is also to be noted here itself that Annexure-A5/Caste and Income Certificate is dated 09.01.2018 which is subsequent to last date prescribed for submitting application and apparently the petitioner could not have produced the said subsequent Certificate along with the application. Since, there was no valid 2A category certificate of the petitioner produced, Selecting Authority/second respondent herein rightly considered the petitioner under general merit category. Under general merit category, the petitioner is less meritorious. The Selecting Authority could not consider the Caste and Income Certificate dated 26.07.2008 as the validity of the said certificate is five years, in terms of Rule 3-C of 1992 Rules being expired. A co-ordinate Bench in an identical circumstance in the case of SELECTION AUTHORITY AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELGAUM v/s SMT.GEETHA DATTATREYA GOKARN reported in ILR 2022 KAR 3109 at paragraphs 10 and 11 has held as follows: “10. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 (for short ‘1990 Act’) provides for issuance of caste and income certificate. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short ‘1992 Rules’) provides for procedure for issuance of caste and income certificate as well as validity certificate. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short ‘1992 Rules’) provides for procedure for issuance of caste and income certificate as well as validity certificate. Rule 3-C of 1992 Rules reads as follows: 3-C. Validity of the Certificate issued by the Tahsildar– (1) The caste certificate issued under Section 4-A shall be valid until it is cancelled. (2) The Income Certificate issued under Section 4-A shall be valid for a period of five years. The above Rule makes it clear that the caste certificate issued under Section 4A of 1990 Act would be valid until it is cancelled. Whereas income certificate issued under Section 4A of 1990 Act would be valid for a period of five years. The validity of one year mentioned in the creamy layer certificate produced by the applicant along with memo dated 20.01.2020 has no basis. The Government Advocate was also not in a position to produce any notification or Government Order prescribing one year validity period for the creamy layer certificate. 11. Caste Certificate and Income Certificate issued under 1990 Act are two different and distinct certificates. Both certificates cannot be treated alike. In respect of caste certificate, for example, if a person is Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he is so by birth and not by any subsequent event or development. A caste certificate issued by the competent authority is only an affirmation of fact which is in existence, i.e., caste status. But in so far as Income certificate issued by the competent authority is concerned, depends on the income of the parents of a candidate concerned existed as on the date of issuing such certificate. There is a purpose behind prescribing the period of validity of income certificate to five years. The income may increase or decrease, depending on his avocation/ profession or employment. Government servants/ employees or salaried class would have a steady increase in their income from year to year. For professionals, businessmen and such persons in other avocation income may increase or decrease.” 9. The notification makes it abundantly clear that the Certificates that are to be produced for claiming reservation or rural weightage shall be obtained before the last date for submitting the application and the originals shall be produced at the time of verification of documents. For professionals, businessmen and such persons in other avocation income may increase or decrease.” 9. The notification makes it abundantly clear that the Certificates that are to be produced for claiming reservation or rural weightage shall be obtained before the last date for submitting the application and the originals shall be produced at the time of verification of documents. The verification of documents of the petitioner was done on 10.01.2018 and the Caste and Income Certificate dated 09.01.2018 was produced at the time of verification of documents which cannot be looked into for determining eligibility since the said certificate is obtained more than one year after the last date for submission of application. Every candidate shall possess eligibility as on the last date prescribed for submitting the application. As there was no valid caste certificate as on the last date, the petitioner was not eligible for consideration of her candidature under category 2A. 10. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in RAM KUMAR GIJROYA ( supra ) and submitted that the Caste and Income Certificate subsequently obtained and submitted ought to have been considered to consider petitioner’s case for selection under category 2A. In RAM KUMAR GIJROYA case, the petitioner therein was not selected as he had failed to submit OBC certificate issued earlier by the appropriate authority along with the Application Form before the last date for submission of application. In that circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a candidate shall be permitted to produce such certificate subsequently, which is not produced along with application. But, in the instant case, to permit production of Caste and Income Certificate issued subsequently, does not arise as the petitioner had not possessed valid Caste and Income Certificate as on the last date for submitting the application. The certificate obtained by the petitioner in the year 2008 was valid for a period of five years and that could not be considered by the Selecting Authority, to consider his/her case under 2A category. As the petitioner had failed to produce valid Caste and Income Certificate obtained prior to last date for submitting application, the Selecting Authority/second respondent herein rightly considered the petitioner’s candidature under general merit. The Tribunal, under impugned order observed that in terms of Recruitment Notification, the applicant did not possess necessary valid reservation certificate as on the last date of receipt of application which would not require interference. 11. The Tribunal, under impugned order observed that in terms of Recruitment Notification, the applicant did not possess necessary valid reservation certificate as on the last date of receipt of application which would not require interference. 11. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.