Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This fact makes the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid reported decision. There cannot be two types of cut-off date- one for General category and another for Scheduled Tribe category candidates, so that the Scheduled Tribe candidates can produce certificate at any point of time. Reserved category candidates are given some priority which is in the form of leniency in passing standard etc. or in the age relaxation etc., but, that does not mean that procedural leniency should be given to such type of candidates. Procedural leniency can be given only by the respondents and not by the Court, otherwise, even age relaxation may be supplied by the Court. Cut-off marks may also be supplied by the Court, but, this is not permissible in the eyes of law. Whatever leniency is to be given, or, whatever relaxation is to be given, or whatever condition is to be waived for the reserved category candidates, all can be done as a policy decision by the respondents and not by the Court, much less, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court cannot be more charitable than the law, nor the Court can be more lenient or generous beyond the policy of the respondents. Too much leniency will lead to chaotic situation. Any time and every time the candidates cannot be allowed to give the certificates. There is bound to be a cut-off date and every one is bond by such cut-off date so that process of selection can be started and examination can be conducted and result can be decided. If this Court is changing the cut-off date, perhaps there cannot be any finality of the examination process. This is not permissible in the eyes of law. Every candidate is bound to give correct application with all necessary documents on or before the prescribed cut-off date, so that process of selection can be over, in time examination can be conducted and the result can be declared. The Court can alter neither the cut-off date prescribed by the Government nor the court can alter the condition of the advertisement. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Even otherwise also, result of 4th Combined Civil Service Examination has been published in the year 2013. Thus, the selected candidates have already joined the services and, thereafter, 5th Combined Civil Service Examination has also been conducted and selected candidates have also joined the services and, hence also, we see no reason to interfere with the result already published."

19. On the question of delayed submission of caste certificates, the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) lays down in clear terms that it is permissible to condone the delay. This view has been followed in a series of authorities originating from different High Courts. But in this appeal, additional default of failure to produce the residential or domicile certificate has also been pointed out before us in course of hearing of the appeal. Though there is only passing reference to default in this regard in the counter-affidavits to the writ petitions, this point has been emphasized in the memorandum of appeal. A Coordinate Bench in the case of Prem Chand Kumar (supra) distinguished between default or delay in furnishing caste certificates and residential certificates and decided the case against the applicant on default on the latter count. The Coordinate Bench opined that no leniency could be shown by the Court if the cut-off date is crossed and it was upto the employing body to relax any qualification norm.