# Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Renu & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 201
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-01
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 781 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uttar-pradesh-public-service-commission-v-renu-ors-51759
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Service Law - U.P. Subordinate Nursing
(Non-Gazetted)
Service
(Fourth
Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Rule 15 -
Recruitment of Staff Nurse
- Experience
Certificate - Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission (UPPSC) rejected candidature of
petitioner for Staff Nurse post due to an
erroneous experience certificate (09.11.2021)
mentioning 'Nurse Mentor' instead of 'Staff
Nurse', despite her having requisite experience
(01.04.2015
to
18.10.2019).
Corrected
certificate (24.08.2022) and issuing authority's
admission of mistake (30.08.2022) submitted
post-re-scrutiny, but not considered by UPPSC,
citing cut-off date for document submission
(18.11.2021, extended to 22.11.2021). Single
Judge allowed Writ-A No. 21430 of 2022, setting
aside UPPSC's rejection order (16.11.2022),
holding that procedural requirement of proof
submission
is
relaxable,
unlike
essential
qualifications. Distinction between possession of
qualification (mandatory by cut-off date) and
proof thereof (directory) upheld, supported by
Supreme Court precedents. No prejudice to
others, as 1,729 posts remained vacant. Single
Judge's view, being plausible, not interfered
with in intra-court appeal. (Paras 15-37)

Special Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,962 of 47,094. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39962 for what follows._

4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
201
stipulation in Clause 1 of Government
Order dated 15th October, 2013 is read
with the guidelines issued by the State
Government on 17th April, 2013 and the
guidelines
issued
by
NCTE
dated
11.02.2011, the distinction between the two
set of tests becomes amply clear.

23. In the result, the irresistible
conclusion is that the petitioner, who was
not having T.E.T. Certificate for teaching
Classes I to V but T.E.T. Certificate in
Sanskrit Language Primary Level, was not
eligible for selection on the post of Primary
Teacher in Junior Basic Schools in
pursuance of the advertisement.

24. We, thus, find no illegality in the
stand contained in the order of Basic
Shiksha Adhikari dated 19.08.2014, against
which the writ petition was filed.

25. Accordingly, the instant appeal is
allowed.

26. The impugned judgement and
order of the learned Single Judge is set
aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 201
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 781 of 2023

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
 ...Appellant
Versus
Renu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Nisheeth Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shantanu Khare, Sri Kauntey Singh, Sri
Ashok Khare (Senior Adv.)

Service Law - U.P. Subordinate Nursing
(Non-Gazetted)
Service
(Fourth
Amendment) Rules, 2016 - Rule 15 -
Recruitment of Staff Nurse
- Experience
Certificate - Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission (UPPSC) rejected candidature of
petitioner for Staff Nurse post due to an
erroneous experience certificate (09.11.2021)
mentioning 'Nurse Mentor' instead of 'Staff
Nurse', despite her having requisite experience
(01.04.2015
to
18.10.2019).
Corrected
certificate (24.08.2022) and issuing authority's
admission of mistake (30.08.2022) submitted
post-re-scrutiny, but not considered by UPPSC,
citing cut-off date for document submission
(18.11.2021, extended to 22.11.2021). Single
Judge allowed Writ-A No. 21430 of 2022, setting
aside UPPSC's rejection order (16.11.2022),
holding that procedural requirement of proof
submission
is
relaxable,
unlike
essential
qualifications. Distinction between possession of
qualification (mandatory by cut-off date) and
proof thereof (directory) upheld, supported by
Supreme Court precedents. No prejudice to
others, as 1,729 posts remained vacant. Single
Judge's view, being plausible, not interfered
with in intra-court appeal. (Paras 15-37)

Special Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of T.N. Vs G. Hemalathaa, (Supreme
Court) (Para 10)

2. Gaurav Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (Allahabad
High Court, Full Bench) (Para 10)

3. Rajendra Patel Vs St. of U.P., (Allahabad High
Court, Full Bench) (Para 10)

4. Charles K. Skaria Vs Dr. C. Mathew,
(Supreme Court) (Paras 11, 16, 18)

5. Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman, JEE, (Supreme
Court) (Paras 11, 17, 24)
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Food Corporation of India Vs Rimjhim,
(Supreme Court) (Paras 11, 18)

7.
Aarav
Jain
Vs
Bihar
Public
Service
Commission, (Supreme Court) (Para 11)

8. Sweety Kumari Vs St. of Bihar, (Supreme
Court) (Para 11)

9. Karn Singh Yadav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(Supreme Court, Two-Judge Bench) (Para 11)

10. Karn Singh Yadav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(Supreme Court, Three-Judge Bench) (Paras 11,
21)

11. Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754
(Paras 20, 21, 23)

12. Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Chander Shekhar,
(Supreme Court, Three-Judge Bench) (Para 22)

13. Divya Vs U.O.I., Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of
2023, decided on 09.10.2023 (Para 22)

14. Secretary, UP Public Service Commission Vs
S Krishna Chaitanya, (Supreme Court) (Para 24)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. The present intra-court appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
Court is against the judgment of learned
Single Judge dated 31.7.2023 in Writ - A
No. 21430 of 2022 (Renu vs. State of U.P.
and 3 others), whereby the writ petition
filed by Renu, non-appellant no. 1
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Original
Writ Petitioner') has been allowed and the
order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Public
Service
Commission,
Prayagraj
(the
appellant
herein)
(for
short
'the
Commission') dated 16.11.2022, has been
set aside and a direction was issued to the
Director, Medical and Health, Government
of U.P., Lucknow (proforma respondent no.
4 herein) to grant benefit of experience
certificate
to
her
and
consider
her
candidature for appointment as a Staff
Nurse, if all other conditions stand
satisfied.

Background Facts:

2.

The
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission issued an advertisement dated
16.7.2021, notifying the holding of Staff
Nurse/Sister
Grade-2
(Male/Female)
Examination, 2021. It was for filling up the
posts of nursing staff in (a) Medical and
Health Services Department (b) Medical
Education and Training Department and (c)
KGMU. The date of commencement of
submission of online application was
16.7.2021;
last
date
for
receipt
of
examination fee online in the bank was
12.8.2021 and last date for submission of
online application was 16.8.2021. Clause
10(4) of the advertisement stipulated that a
maximum of 15 marks would be awarded
to a candidate for past experience as Staff
Nurse on contractual basis. For the first
completed year of service, a candidate
would be entitled to 3 marks. For the next
and every completed year of service on
contract basis, 3 marks for each year. In
this regard, the certificate issued by the
Competent Authority only was to be treated
as valid. The said stipulation around which
the controversy revolves, in the present
appeal is extracted below: -

10(4) Selection shall carry on
hundred marks. The merit list of the
candidates shall be prepared in the
following manner: -

(a) Written Examination shall
carry ......... Eighty Five marks.

(b) Marks to a person who is
working as Staff Nurse on contract basis in
the
Medical
and
Health
Services
4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
203
Department,
Uttar
Pradesh
shall
be
awarded in the following manner subject to
the maximum of fifteen marks: -

(i) For the first completed year of
service on contract basis ...... Three marks.

(ii) For the next and every
completed year of service on contract basis,
Three marks for each year. In this regard
the certificate issued by the Appointing
Authority only shall be treated valid. A
Proforma for this purpose is available in
Appendix - 6 of this advertisement.

(c) The marks obtained by each
candidate under clause (a) shall, where
applicable, be added to the marks obtained
under clause (b).

Note : The candidates must
possess all the requisite qualifications upto
the last date for submitting the applications.

3. Thus, out of total 100 marks on
which candidates were to be tested, 85
marks were allocated for the written
examination and 15 marks for past
experience in service.

4. The aforesaid stipulation was in
accordance with Rule 15 of the U.P.
Subordinate
Nursing
(Non-Gazetted)
Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2016
(for short 'the Rules 2016').

5. The Original Writ Petitioner after
completing all the formalities, appeared in
the written examination. The result was
declared on 4.1.2022 and she was shown
selected. She had secured 28.50 marks in
the written examination and was given 12
marks for experience. Thus, she had
secured a total of 40.50 marks. After the
result was declared, a Writ Petition bearing
No. 1815 of 2022 (Priti Patel and another
vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed
challenging the result on the ground that
the Commission did not properly scrutinize
the
experience
certificates
of
the
candidates. In the said writ petition, the
Commission made statement through its
counsel that it would re-scrutinize the
experience certificates of 814 selected
candidates
in
respect
of
whom
recommendation for appointment had not
been made to the State Government by that
time. The Court having regard to the said
submission permitted the Commission to
carry out the said exercise.

6.

In
pursuance
thereof,
the
Commission re-scrutinized the experience
certificates and issued fresh select list on
23.8.2022, in which the name of the
petitioner was missing. It is pertinent to
note that the petitioner had filed experience
certificate dated 9.11.2021 issued by Chief
Medical Officer, Rampur. In the said
certificate, the Chief Medical Officer by
mistake mentioned that the petitioner had
worked as Nurse Mentor instead of Staff
Nurse. The said mistake, it seems, came to
the knowledge of the petitioner when she
found her name missing in the revised
result declared on 23.8.2022. On 24.8.2022,
she submitted another certificate from the
Chief Medical Officer, certifying that she
had worked as Staff Nurse. She also filed
yet another certificate from Chief Medical
Officer dated 30.8.2022, stating that by
inadvertence and oversight, it came to be
mentioned in the certificate issued on
9.11.2021 that she had worked as Nurse
Mentor in place of Staff Nurse (contractual
basis). The petitioner represented to the
Commission on 5.9.2022 on basis of the
aforesaid certificates and highlighted the
inadvertent mistake on part of the Issuing
Authority and prayed for being declared
selected.

7. It is pertinent to note that out of
total advertised posts, 1,729 posts had
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remained vacant as the same could not be
filled up because of non-availability of
suitable eligible candidates. However, the
representation filed by the petitioner did
not find favour with the Commission and
was rejected by the order dated 16.11.2022.
It has been observed therein that the
original writ petitioner had filed experience
certificate
as
Nurse
Mentor
and
consequently she was not given the benefit
of past experience. In other words, the
Commission declined to take notice of the
experience certificate dated 24.8.2022 and
another certificate dated 30.8.2022, in
which the Issuing Authority admitted its
mistake.

8. The learned Single Judge after
considering a number of judgments of
Supreme Court and of this Court, held in
favour of the Original Writ Petitioner and
issued
direction
for
considering
the
experience
certificate
and
aggrieved
whereby, the instant appeal has been filed.

Issues:

9. The main issue for consideration is
whether the petitioner has been wrongly
denied the benefit of experience as Staff
Nurse
and
whether
the
certificates
furnished by her from time to time, could
be considered for awarding marks on that
score.

Submissions of learned counsel for
the parties:

10. Shri Nisheet Yadav, counsel for
the
Commission
contended
that
the
Original Writ Petitioner had submitted the
experience certificate of working on the
post of Nurse Mentor and not Staff Nurse
along with the hard copy of the online
application form in terms of notifications
dated 02.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 issued by
the Commission after declaration of result
of the written examination. Therefore, the
Commission did not grant her marks for
experience as that would have been in
contravention of the Rules 2016 as well as
the stipulations in the advertisement. The
Commission in its aforesaid notifications
dated 02.11.2021 and 15.11.2021, specified
a
cut-off
date
for
submitting
the
testimonials/
documents
and
also
mentioned
that
no
claim
would
be
entertained thereafter and therefore it was
bound
by
the
same.
In
case
the
Commission entertains any claim after the
cut-off date, it would be an unending
process and the Commission would not be
able to finalize the selection process.
Reliance has been placed on the following
judgments: -

(i) The State of Tamil Nadu and
Others vs. G. Hemalathaa and

another1;

(ii) Gaurav Sharma vs. State of
U.P.2;

(iii) Rajendra Patel vs. State of
U.P. and Another3.

11. On the other hand, Sri Ashok
Khare, learned counsel for the Original
Writ
Petitioner,
submitted
that
the
petitioner duly possessed the requisite
experience. The inadvertent mistake on part
of the Issuing Authority in the certificate
originally
furnished,
but
which
was
rectified as soon as the mistake was
detected, would not disentitle her to the
marks under the heading "experience". The
post of Nurse Mentor is a superior post and
therefore even otherwise, experience on the
said post could not have been brushed
aside. There is difference in a candidate
possessing essential qualification before the
prescribed last date which is a must and
4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
205
from which there cannot be any deviation.
However, the same principle would not
apply to furnishing of documents in proof
thereof, which is only directory in nature,
being in the realm of procedure. Moreover,
in the instant case, the Commission itself
extended the date for submitting the
documents from time to time and therefore,
it could not have ignored the experience
certificate of the petitioner. It is also urged
that it was not a case of filing of experience
certificate after the prescribed date, but
only correction of the error in the original
certificate. In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance on the following
judgments: -

(i) Charles K. Skaria and others
vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others4;

(ii)
Dolly
Chhanda
vs.
Chairman, Jee and Others5;

(iii) Food Corporation of India
vs. Rimjhim6;

(iv) Aarav Jain vs. The Bihar
Public Service Commission and others7;

(v) Sweety Kumari vs. State of
Bihar and others8;

(vi) Karn Singh Yadav vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others9;

(vii) Karn Singh Yadav vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others10.

Analysis:

12. Before we proceed to analyse the
issue involved, certain facts which are not
in dispute, are noted hereunder -

The
petitioner
applied
in
pursuance
of
advertisement
dated
16.7.2021. Under the Service Rules as well
as in terms of the advertisement, a
candidate is entitled to a maximum of 15
marks for experience as Staff Nurse on
contractual basis. The petitioner had
worked as Staff Nurse on contractual basis
under National Rural Health Mission from
01.04.2015 to 18.10.2019, i.e. for more
than four years. It thus entitled her to 12
marks towards 'experience'. The petitioner
appeared in the written examination held
on 03.10.2021 and was declared successful.
Thereafter,
in
pursuance
of
press
communique
(Notification)
dated
3.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 requiring the
candidates to submit hard copy of the
online application form and documents in
support of the claim made in the
application,
she
submitted
experience
certificate dated 9.11.2021, issued by Chief
Medical Officer, Rampur. When the final
result was published on 04.01.2022, she
was declared selected. She was awarded 12
marks for past experience. However, on rescrutiny, when revised result was declared
on 23.8.2023, her name was missing from
the list of selected candidates. The
petitioner
on
coming
to
know
of
discrepancy in the original experience
certificate dated 9.11.2021, got another
certificate issued on 24.8.2022 by Chief
Medical Officer, Rampur. He also issued a
certificate on 30.8.2022, admitting the
mistake
while
issuing
the
original
certificate.

13. In the above backdrop, it has to be
examined whether the stand taken by the
Commission is sustainable or not and
whether in the facts and circumstances of
the instant case, the writ-petitioner was
entitled to the benefit of experience as Staff
Nurse.

14. One of the first principles clearly
discernible from various judgments cited
by counsel for the parties is that the
rules/instructions
framed
by
the
Commission
are
binding
and
the
Commission is not empowered to relax the
same. Thus, in State of Tamil Nadu
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(supra), where the instructions framed by
the Commission stipulated that in case of
use of whitener, sketch pens, pencils,
colour
pencils,
multi-colour
pencils,
crayons, etc. a candidate would be
disqualified, use of such material by
candidate leading to disqualification was
upheld.

15. There are series of decisions
which draw distinction between essential
requirements and the proof/mode of proof.
It has been held that while the general rule
is that a candidate should possess the
eligibility qualification on a specified date
or in its absence on the last date of
submitting the application form and for
which there can be no relaxation, but the
same does not apply in relation to the
requirement of submitting documents in
proof thereof.

16. Thus in Charles K. Skaria,
(supra), a case relating to admission to
post-graduate course in Ophthalmology, a
weightage of 10 per cent marks was
provided to candidates possessing diploma
in the relevant stream. The benefit was
denied to the appellants before the Supreme
Court on the ground that they had failed to
produce the diploma certificate alongwith
application
form,
despite
specific
requirements to the said effect. The
Supreme
Court
drawing
distinction
between possessing of the qualification and
its proof observed as follows:

"20.
There
is
nothing
unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10
marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn
these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be
obtained at least on or before the last date
for application, not later. Proof of having
obtained a diploma is different from the
factum of having got it. Has the candidate,
in fact, secured a diploma before the final
date of application for admission to the
degree course? That is the primary
question. It is prudent to produce evidence
of the diploma along with the application,
but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date
on the first is illegal, not so on the second.
Academic excellence, through a diploma
for which extra mark is granted, cannot be
denuded because proof is produced only
later, yet before the date of actual selection.
The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof
thereof subserves the factum of possession
of the diploma and is not an independent
factor. The prospectus does say:

(4) (b) 10% to diploma holders in
the selection of candidates to M. S., and M.
D., courses in the respective subjects or
sub-specialities.

13. Certificates to be produced :-
In all cases true copies of the following
documents have to be produced :-

(k) Any other certificates required
along with the application.

This composite statement cannot
be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof
is geared to the goal of the qualification in
question. It is subversive of sound
interpretation and realistic decoding of the
prescription to telescope the two and make
both mandatory in point of time. What is
essential is the possession of a diploma
before the given date; what is ancillary is
the
safe
mode
of
proof
of
the
qualification. To confuse between a fact
and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To
make mandatory the date of acquiring
the additional qualification before the
last date for application makes sense.
But if it is unshakeably shown that the
qualification has been acquired before
the relevant date, as is the case here, to
invalidate this merit factor because
proof, though indubitable, was adduced
a few days later but before the selection
4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
207
or in a manner not mentioned in the
prospectus, but still above-board, is to
make procedure not the handmaid but
the mistress and form not as subservient
to substance but as superior to the
essence."
(emphasis supplied)

17. The judgement in Charles K.
Skaria (supra) was followed by a three
Judge Bench in Dolly Chhanda vs.
Chairman, JEE and Others (supra). The
facts of the said case are very similar to that
of the instant case. The appellant therein
submitted application for appearing in the
Joint Entrance Examination, 2003 under
the reserved M.I. category being daughter
of an ex-servicemen, who was discharged
from armed forces on the ground of
permanent disability. Under Clause 2.1.4 of
the admission brochure, certain percentage
of seats were reserved for children, widows
of personnel of armed/para military forces
of Orissa, killed/disabled in action during
war or peace time operations. Her position
was 20 in M.I. category and she was called
for counselling. During scrutiny of papers,
it transpired that the certificate dated
29.06.2003 given to her father by Zila
Sainik Board in column three pertaining to
'disabled/killed
in
war/hostilities'
contained an endorsement "not eligible".
Consequently,
her
candidature
was
rejected. She then filed another certificate
dated 16.07.2003, which mentioned that
her father was permanently disabled. This,
undoubtedly entitled her to the benefit of
M.I. category. However, it was not
considered on the ground that she failed to
produce the said certificate at the time of
counselling on 07.07.2003. The appellant
filed writ petition contending that she falls
under M.I. category and she could not be
made to suffer for the fault committed by
Zila Sainik Board in not issuing a correct
certificate in the first instance. The writ
filed by her was dismissed. The Supreme
Court held that there can be relaxation in
the matter of submission of proof and it
will not be proper to apply any rigid
principle as it pertains to the domain of
procedure. Every infraction of the rule
relating to submission of proof need not
necessarily
result
in
rejection
of
candidature. The relevant observations in
paragraph no.7 of the law report are
extracted below:

"7. The general rule is that while
applying for any course of study or a post,
a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure or
in application form, as the case may be,
unless there is an express provision to the
contrary. There can be no relaxation in this
regard i.e. in the matter of holding the
requisite eligibility qualification by the date
fixed. This has to be established by
producing
the
necessary
certificates,
degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order
to avail of the benefit of reservation or
weightage, etc. necessary certificates have
to be produced. These are documents in the
nature of proof of holding of particular
qualification or percentage of marks
secured or entitlement to benefit of
reservation. Depending upon the facts of
a case, there can be some relaxation in
the matter of submission of proof and it
will not be proper to apply any rigid
principle as it pertains in the domain of
procedure. Every infraction of the rule
relating to submission of proof need not
necessarily
result
in
rejection
of
candidature."
(emphasis supplied)

18. In Food Corporation of India
(supra), the Supreme Court followed the
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgement in Charles K. Skaria and Dolly
Chhanda and considered the experience
certificate of a candidate filed alongwith
the writ petition, again drawing distinction
between a fact and its proof. The relevant
observations are as follows:

13. Now so far as the submission or
behalf of the FCI that a candidate must
and/or ought to have produced the
experience certificate along with the
application is concerned, at this stage, a
decision of this Court in Charles K. Skaria
v. C. Mathew and the subsequent decision
of this Court in Dolly Chhanda v. JEE are
required to be referred to. In Charles K.
Skaria, this Court had an occasion to
consider
the
distinction
between
the
essential requirements and the proof/mode
of proof. In the aforesaid case, this Court
had an occasion to consider the distinction
between a fact and its proof. In the
aforesaid
case
before
this
Court,
a
candidate/student was entitled to extra 10%
marks for holders of a diploma and the
diploma must be obtained on or before the
last date of the application, not later. In the
aforesaid case, a candidate secured diploma
before the final date of application, but did
not produce the evidence of diploma along
with the application. Therefore, he was not
allowed extra 10% marks and therefore
denied the admission. Dealing with such a
situation, this Court observed and held that
what was essential requirement was that a
candidate must have obtained the diploma
on or before the last date of application but
not
later,
and
that
is
the
primary
requirement and to submit the proof that
the diploma is obtained on or before a
particular
date
as
per
the
essential
requirement is secondary. This Court
specifically observed and held that "What
is essential is the possession of a diploma
before the given date; what is ancillary is
the
safe
mode
of
proof
of
the
qualification." This Court specifically
observed and held that "To confuse
between a fact and its proof is blurred
perspicacity."
(emphasis supplied)

19. Now, coming to the judgement
relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant in Gaurav Sharma (supra), it is
noticeable that there was requirement of
filing OBC certificate before a prescribed
date. The Full Bench held that a candidate
claiming benefit of OBC category has to
establish twin conditions: (i) that he
belongs to OBC category recognized by
State and (ii) that he does not fall within
creamy layer. These requirements were to
be adjudged with reference to the date
prescribed in the advertisement. The Full
Bench took notice of the fact that OBC
certificate (non-creamy layer) is issued
with reference to financial condition of
holder or his parents assessed over a period
of three years and, therefore, it was liable
to change over a period of time. Therefore,
a caste certificate submitted after the
prescribed last date was held to be
inadmissible. The said judgement, in our
considered opinion, would not apply to the
facts of the instant case, where there is no
dispute of the fact that the original writ
petitioner possessed experience as staff
nurse but was denied its benefit only on
account of mistake on the part of the
issuing
authority
in
mentioning
her
experience to be on the post of staff mentor
instead of staff nurse.

20. The judgment of Supreme Court
in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board11,
on which reliance was placed before the
Full Bench in submitting that OBC
certificate filed even later on could be
4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
209
considered, was distinguished on the
ground that therein the need of filing OBC
Certificate was not a pre-condition for
accepting the application form but was
notified along with the declaration of result.
To highlight the said aspect, even Para 8 of
the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya
(supra) was quoted, which is as follows: -

"8. Mr. R.C. Kaushik, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant contends that the Division Bench
of the High Court erred in not giving the
opportunity to the appellant to submit the
O.B.C. certificate after the cut-off date of
the
application.
The
requirement
of
submitting the O.B.C. certificate before the
cut-off date of the application was
introduced by the respondent-DSSSB only
while declaring the result on 15.12.2008,
holding that the appellant was not eligible
for selection of the post of Staff Nurse as
the O.B.C. certificate was received after
cut-off date. The learned counsel contends
that the stand of respondent-DSSSB is
arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and is
also contrary to the settled proposition of
law and guidelines issued on reservation
and concession for candidates belonging to
the
reserved
categories.
The
learned
counsel places reliance upon the judgment
of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tej
Pal Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
wherein it was categorically held by the
High Court that the petitioners therein were
entitled to submit such certificates even
after the cut-off date fixed by the
advertisement".

21. A two Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in Karn Singh Yadav
(supra) referred the issue involved in Ram
Kumar Gijroya (supra) to Bench of three
judges. When Karn Singh Yadav case
came up before the Larger Bench, the
Larger Bench in para-5 observed as
follows:

"It must be stated here that an
identical fact situation came up for
consideration before this Court in Ram
Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC
754, wherein this Court ruled in favour of
the concerned candidate. The instant matter
is thus completely covered by said
decision."

At the same time, noticing that
the candidate was never appointed to the
post in question and the matter related to
the year 2007 and considerable time had
lapsed, no relief was granted.

22. The judgment in Karn Singh
Yadav (supra) was considered by the
Supreme Court in Divya vs. Union of
India, Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2023,
decided on 09.10.2023. It is observed that
the three Judge Bench in Karn Singh
Yadav (supra) did not answer the question.
Another judgment of three Judge Bench in
Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs.
Chander Shekhar and Another12, was
preferred and relied upon. The judgment in
Ram
Kumar
Gijroya
(supra)
was
distinguished on the ground that in the said
case, requirement of filing OBC Certificate
before the cut-off date was notified by the
Selection Body while declaring the result.
The relevant observations are as follows: -

"54. The strong reliance placed
on Ram Kumar Gijroya case (supra) also
does not impress us. Not only was there no
rule, like we have in the present case, it
was only while declaring the result, the
requirement of submitting the OBC
certificate before the cut-off date was
introduced by the Selection Authority
there. Moreover, unlike the present, there
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was no contention or issue raised in that
case that eligibility enures or crystalizes
only on the issuance of the certificate and
on possession of the certificate, before the
prescribed cut-off date."
(emphasis supplied)

It is noteworthy that in the said
case, under the relevant Rules, it was
mandatory for a candidate to possess EWS
certificate before the prescribed cut-off
date. There was a negative covenant by
way of Rule 13 that the proof of documents
filed beyond the last date of submitting the
application form would not be admissible
and shall lead to cancellation of the
candidature. Having regard to the said
negative covenant, it was held that for a
candidate to be eligible, he/she should not
only fall in EWS category but should
possess said certificate by the relevant date.
It is for the said reason that the judgment in
Charles K. Skaria (supra) and other cases
echoing the same view, were distinguished.
It is evident from para-45 of the Law
Report, which is extracted :-

That
is
the
fundamental
distinction between the Charles K. Skaria
(supra) line of cases and the cases at hand.
As pointed out earlier, the eligibility for
being categorized as EWS candidate
crystallizes only when the I&AC is issued
and, in this case, as required under the
rules, it was to be issued and possessed by
the candidate before 22.02.2022.

23. The judgment in Divya vs. Union
of India (supra) is clearly distinguishable
on facts. In the instant case, there was no
prescription
of
possessing
experience
certificate by the last date prescribed for
submitting online application rather the
advertisement itself provided that the date
for submitting proof of claims would be
notified by the Commission in due course.
This was also the situation in Ram Kumar
Gijroya (supra) where the Commission
notified the requirement of filing OBC
Certificate at the time of declaring the
result.

24. Other Full Bench judgement of
this Court in Rajendra Patel (supra) is also
not of much help to the appellants. Therein,
there was a prescribed last date for filing
the documents and a negative covenant to
the effect that in case the prescribed deadline for completing various stages of
recruitment
is
not
complied
with
scrupulously, it would entail rejection of
the candidature. In the aforesaid backdrop,
the Full Bench observed as follows:

"Reliance was also sought to be
placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court
in Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman, JEE, In
Dolly Chhanda (supra), the Supreme Court
has observed that the general rule is that
while applying for any course of study or
post, a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure or
in the application form, as the case may be,
unless there is an express provision to the
contrary. The Supreme Court held that
there could be no relaxation in the matter of
holding
the
requisite
eligibility
qualification by the date fixed. However,
depending upon the facts of the case, there
can be some relaxation in the matter of
submitting proof and it may not be proper
to apply a rigid, principle which may
pertain to the domain of procedure. Hence,
every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily
result in the rejection of the candidature.
These principles which have been laid
down are not in dispute and they cannot be.
However, the issue in the present case is
whether the submission of a hard copy by
the specified date together with all the
4 All. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Renu & Ors.
211
documents was merely a matter of
procedure. To accept the submission of the
petitioner would, as we have held earlier,
result in a situation where a candidate would
be entitled to assert that despite the stipulated
last date and a prescribed consequence of
invalidation which has been drawn to the
notice of the candidates, the Commission
would be bound to scrutinise applications
which are received together with the hard
copies beyond the prescribed date. This, in
our view, would not be permissible. We may
also note that in a judgment in Secretary, UP
Public Service Commission Vs S Krishna
Chaitanya, the Supreme Court has held that
the Commission cannot be directed to declare
the final results when the application form of
a candidate had not been received within the
prescribed period."

25. The cardinal principles which
emerge from the above discussion are that-

(a) A candidate should possess the
prescribed qualification before cut-off date or
the last date prescribed for submission of the
application form unless there is stipulation to
the contrary.

(b) There is difference between the
fact of possessing minimum prescribed
qualification by a specified date and the proof
thereof. While there can be no relaxation in
the first requirement, in appropriate cases and
having regard to the fact of particular case
and the Recruitment Scheme, there can be
some relaxation in submitting the proof.

(c) If there is stipulated last date
and
a
prescribed
consequence
of
invalidation, the same is sacrosanct and
cannot be relaxed.

26. Reverting to the facts of the case,
it is important to note certain stipulations in
the
original
advertisement
dated
16.07.2021. Note no. 2 provided that - "the
candidate must send hard copy of their
online applications and enclose selfattested copies of all certificates in support
of their claim rendered in the online
application. In this connection, a separate
press communique shall be published in
due course by the Commission."

27. Clause no. 13(4) of the 'Important
instructions to candidates' provided that-
'The candidates will have to enclose selfattested copies of mark sheets, certificates
and degrees alongwith the application
forms of examination in support of their
claim of educational qualifications. If
they do not enclose self-attested copies of
certificates/documents in support of their
claims, the application shall be rejected.'

28. Clause no. 13(10) stipulates that
- 'The Commission may admit the
candidate provisionally after summarily
checking of the applications but if it is
found at any stage that the applicant was
not eligible or that his/her application
should
have
been
rejected
or
not
entertainable initially, his/her candidature
will be rejected and if the candidate is
selected, the recommendation of the
Commission
for
selection
shall
be
withdrawn.'

29. The scheme of selection, as
evident from the aforesaid stipulations in
the advertisement is that initially the
applications
were
entertained
provisionally on basis of disclosures
made in the application. Later, the
Commission would notify, by a separate
press communique, the date by which
hard copy of the online applications and
self-attested copies of all certificates and
documents in support of the claim made
in the online applications were to be
submitted before the Commission by a
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
specified date. This is also admitted to
the Commission in paragraphs 12 and 14 of
the affidavit filed in the instant appeal.

30. Accordingly, the Commission
after conducting the written examination,
notified the list of candidates, who had
obtained
marks
above
the
minimum
efficiency standard. It was 25 marks for
candidates of General category and 20 marks
for SC & ST candidates. The petitioner, who
had
obtained
marks
above
minimum
efficiency standard was duly included in the
list. The Commission issued a press
communique in shape of a notification on
03.11.2021 requiring the candidates, who had
obtained marks above cut-off marks, to fill
online application form mentioning therein
the details in respect of the date, sex,
residence, category etc. and after filling up
online application form, the candidate was
required to save and submit hard copy of the
application
form
along
with
relevant
certificates in support of the claim made in
the
application
form
by
18.11.2021.
Paragraph nos.1, 2 and 5 of the said
notification are extracted below:

"उ0प्र0 लोक सेवा आयोग, प्रयागराज
द्वारा सवज्ञापन सिंख्या - ए-4 / ई-1 / 2021 के
अन्तगथत सदनािंक-03.10.2021 को आयोसजत
स्टाफ नसथ / ससस्टर िेड-2 ( पुरुर् / मसहला)
परीक्षा-
2021
में
सखिसलत
सामान्य,
ई०डब्लू०एस० व अन्य सपछड़ा वगथ के ऐसे अभ्यर्ी
सजन्ोिंने उक्त सलखखत परीक्षा ( कुल - 85 अिंक में)
25 अिंक व उससे असिक एविं अनुसूसचत जासत व
अनुसूसचत जनजासत श्रेणी के ऐसे अभ्यर्ी सजन्ोिंने
20 अिंक व उससे असिक अिंक प्राप्त सकए है, उन
अभ्यसर्थयोिं की सूची आयोग की वेबसाइट
https://uppsc.up.nic.in पर उपलब्ध है।

2 - उक्त समस्त अभ्यसर्थयोिं से
आनलाइन दावे के समर्थन में समस्त शैसक्षक
अिंक पत्र व प्रमाण पत्र, अनुभव सम्बन्धी प्रमाण
पत्र, उ०प्र० के आरसक्षत श्रेणी की दशा में
सनिाथररत प्रारूप पर प्रमाण पत्र तर्ा उ०प्र० की
मसहला अभ्यर्ी होने की दशा में सपता पक्ष की
ओर से सनवास प्रमाण पत्र ससहत परम्परागत
आवेदन पत्र आमिंसत्रत सकये जाते हैं।

5 - आनलाइन भरे गये फामथ सेट
(आवेदन-पत्र) को मुसित करके उसके सार्
समस्त
सिंलग्नकोिं
(प्रत्येक
वर्थ
की
अिंक
तासलकाओिं, उपासियोिं तर्ा अन्य सभी दावोिं से
सम्बखन्धत प्रमाण-पत्रोिं की स्वप्रमासणत प्रसतयााँ एविं
वरीयता प्रपत्र ससहत एक सलफाफे में भरकर तर्ा
उक्त सलफाफे पर मुसित पता पची (Address
Slip) चस्पा कर सदनािंक 18 नवम्बर, 2021 को
5.00 अपराहन तक अर्वा उसके पूवथ ससचव,
उ०प्र० लोक सेवा आयोग, (सेवा अनुभाग-6) 10-
कस्तूरबा गािंिी मागथ, प्रयागराज, सपन कोड निं0-
211018 को पिंजीकृत डाक द्वारा अर्वा
व्यखक्तगत रूप से आयोग के गेट सिंख्या - 3 पर
खस्र्त डाक अनुभाग के काउन्टर (पूछ-ताछ
काउन्टर) पर अवश्य उपलब्ध करा दें। उक्त
अखन्तम सतसर् के बाद प्राप्त होने वाले आवेदन पत्र
सकसी भी दशा में स्वीकार नहीिं सकए जाएगें।"

31. Thereafter, the said time limit was
relaxed and was extended up to 22.11.2021
by notification dated 15.11.2021.

32. It is reiterated at the cost of
repetition that the aforesaid notifications were
issued
after
holding
of
the
written
examination. The petitioner, admittedly,
obtained marks above the cut-off marks. The
selection
scheme
was
not
such
that
appearance of candidates in the written
examination was dependent upon proof of
experience. On the contrary, Note no.