JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to extend benefit of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Accountant. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner hails from Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and belongs to Koli community, which has been declared as Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as State of Rajasthan. The petitioner owns to her credit qualification of M.Com. She performed marriage with Dr. Jitendra Verma on 23.06.2003, who resides in Kota, Rajasthan. The petitioner has placed on record Caste Certificate issued by Tehsildar Byavara, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh as well as Caste Certificate issued by concerned authority in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 01.12.2010/04.12.2010 by the respondent-Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant, whereby, applications were invited from eligible candidates. In the above process, as many as five vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste (Female) candidates. It was mentioned in the advertisement that married female candidates of SC/ST categories should produce Caste Certificate issued by the competent authorities of Rajasthan with the name and residence of their father/mother and not with the name and residence of husband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after submitting application form in Scheduled Caste (Female) category, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process wherein she secured 43.65 marks which were much more than cut off marks declared for Scheduled Caste (Female) category. Hence, vide letter dated 26.05.2011, the petitioner was directed to appear for documents verification before the competent authority. As per the directions, the petitioner appeared for documents verification on 10.06.2011 before the competent authority and produced her original documents including Caste Certificates issued by the authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh as well as State of Rajasthan. However, Caste Certificate issued by the authority of State of Rajasthan was ignored by the respondents on the pretext that the same has been issued with the name and residence of her husband instead of the same being issued with the name and residence of her parents. However, Caste Certificate issued by the authority of State of Rajasthan was ignored by the respondents on the pretext that the same has been issued with the name and residence of her husband instead of the same being issued with the name and residence of her parents. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the competent authority with request to correct her Caste Certificate and to issue fresh certificate with the name and residence of her parents. Accordingly, another Caste Certificate dated 13.06.2011 was issued by Tehsildar, Ladpura, District Kota with the name and resident of petitioner’s father Kanvar Lal in order to establish that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. Despite that, the petitioner has not been extended benefit of appointment by the respondents and the candidates having lesser marks than her were offered appointment on the post of Junior Accountant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner indicated that while issuing notices vide order dated 22.07.2011, this Court also granted interim order in favour of the petitioner, directing the respondents that one vacancy of Junior Accountant reserved for Scheduled Caste (Female) category shall not be filled on substantive basis without seeking permission of the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the circumstances where Koli community has admittedly been declared as Scheduled Caste in the constitutional order both in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason for denying appointment to the petitioner moreso, when she has secured more marks than cut off marks of Scheduled Caste (Female) category. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Sahendra Bai Vs. RPSC & Another (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3107/2005 and other connected matters decided on 19.03.2008) , in order to press his submission that migration on account of marriage would not deprive a female candidate from taking benefit of reservation of Scheduled Caste category moreso, when such caste has been shown in the reserved category in parental State as well as in the migrated State. 7. 7. Writ petition has been vehemently opposed by the respondents by filing reply and it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the instructions in the advertisement were quite clear that a married female candidate belonging of Scheduled Caste was required to produce Caste Certificate with the name and residence of her parents and not with the name and residence of her husband. Ignoring such instructions and in violation thereof, the petitioner produced Caste Certificate dated 31.12.2010 and 28.12.2010 issued by Tehsildar, Ladpura Kota which were admittedly issued with the name and residence of husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that even as per letter dated 26.05.2011, clear instructions were given that certificates of SC/ST issued by the concerned competent authority of Rajasthan State only shall be considered. Therefore, there was no occasion for considering certificate issued by the concerned authority of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of appointment in question. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further objected that admittedly, either on the last date of submitting application form or on the date of documents verification, i.e., on 10.06.2011, the petitioner was not possessing requisite certificate, therefore, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by the respondents in not considering the petitioner in Scheduled Caste (Female) category. 9. In addition to above, it has also been indicated by learned counsel for the respondents that there were discrepancies in different certificates submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that in Caste Certificate dated 02.09.1997 issued by the competent authority at Byavara, Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was shown to be resident of Byavara, Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh whereas in Caste Certificate dated 13.06.2011, which was of the date subsequent to prescribed date, the petitioner was shown to be resident of R.K. Puram, Kota. Thus, places of residence of the petitioner and her father shown in the above certificates were also different. Hence, there was reasonable doubt on the genuineness and veracity of such caste certificates. Therefore, under these circumstances, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner in the category of Scheduled Caste (Female). 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material on record. 11. Hence, there was reasonable doubt on the genuineness and veracity of such caste certificates. Therefore, under these circumstances, no mistake whatsoever has been committed by the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner in the category of Scheduled Caste (Female). 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material on record. 11. It is an undisputed fact that for showing eligibility in the category of Scheduled Caste (Female), a candidate was required to produce caste certificate in the manner and format prescribed in the advertisement. It was further provided that the caste certificate must have been issued with the name and residence of parents of female candidate and not with the name and residence of her husband. Clause 7 of the advertisement provides for list of documents to be attached with the online generated application form, which as per sub-clause (iv) includes the copy of certificate of SC or ST or OBC/BC/SBC category, as the case may be issued by the concerned competent authority of Rajasthan only. Clause 9 of the advertisement lays down the procedure of online application and sub-clause (iii) thereof indicates that online registration of applications will start on 06.12.2010 and will remain operative till 21.12.2010. Clause 10(i) makes it clear that before applying, the candidate should ensure that he/she fulfills the eligibility criteria and other conditions mentioned in the advertisement. Thus, conjoint reading of all such clauses of advertisement would make it abundantly clear that the candidate was required to possess requisite valid caste certificate till the last date of submitting application form i.e. till 21.12.2010. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess such certificate either on the last date of filing application form or even thereafter, on the date of documents verification, i.e., on 10.06.2011. Hence, for claiming benefit of reservation in Scheduled Caste (Female) category, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite certificate on the relevant dates. 13. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess such certificate either on the last date of filing application form or even thereafter, on the date of documents verification, i.e., on 10.06.2011. Hence, for claiming benefit of reservation in Scheduled Caste (Female) category, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite certificate on the relevant dates. 13. In the case of Sakshi Arha vs. Rajasthan High Court & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 757 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even for the purpose of claiming reservation, a candidate is required to produce the caste certificate issued by the competent authority in prescribed manner on the relevant date and admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was not possessing such caste certificate either on the last date of filing of application form or even subsequently on the date of documents verification. Para 26 and 27 of the above judgment are relevant which lay down as under: " 26. The Advertisement appears to be silent on the aspect of last date of issuance of valid category certificate, however, clause (i) and (iii) of paragraph 06 explicitly provide that the candidates from concerned categories therein were to furnish certificate issued by the competent authority as per rules. Thereafter, a collective reference to clauses 1 and 2 of paragraph 18 attracts our attention as it clarified that candidates should only apply under a said category if they meet all the eligibility conditions as per the Advertisement. Moreover, as per para 23 of the Advertisement, all the candidates, making their individual claims were necessarily required to produce original documents or certificates, as the case may be, to substantiate their claims of eligibility for reservation. 27. On the subject of absence of last date to showcase their eligibility by a candidate apropos their equivalent claim, this Court clarified the correct position of law in its decision in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab 11 , where, while upholding the view taken by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that the eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring public employment shall be determined pertaining to the cut-off date as outlined in the applicable rules of their respective service. In case the rules are silent, the decisive date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement for recruitment. In case the rules are silent, the decisive date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement for recruitment. However, in case of absence of specifications in both context, the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of the last date of submission of applications before the concerned authority or institute. This, thereby, ensures a clear temporal reference point for evaluating qualifications of a candidate as per the concerned advertisement." 14. Apart from above, serious doubts have been raised by the respondents with regard to address of the father of the petitioner shown in Caste Certificates issued by the concerned authority at Madhya Pradesh and by Tehsildar, Ladpura, Kota, Rajasthan. It is also matter of record that condition of advertisement prescribing for production of caste certificate with the name and residence of parents of female Scheduled Caste candidate has also not been challenged by the petitioner. 15. So far as decision in the case of Mrs. Sahendra Bai (supra) , as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, the principle laid down therein that in case a particular caste has been shown in reserved category both in parental State as well as migrated State, benefit of reservation can be granted, cannot be disputed. However, for the purpose of seeking such reservation, a candidate is required to produce caste certificate in the manner prescribed in the advertisement. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to produce such certificate, therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Mrs. Sahendra Bai (supra) is not attracted in the present case and the same is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the respondents have rightly not considered the petitioner in Scheduled Caste (Female) category for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant and, therefore, no interference of this Court is called for. 17. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.