IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1192 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.2.2010 Loveljeet Kaur. -----Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking direction for consideration in reserved category for appointment to the post of JBT/ETT teacher. 2. The appellant was one of the candidates for the posts advertised vide Notice dated 5.9.2007, Annexure P-1. Clause 6 of the said Notice/advertisement provided that a candidate seeking reservation will have to produce a certificate of caste/class, which should not be older than one year, on the last date of submission of the application. Certificate annexed by the LPA No.1192 of 2009 appellant was older than one year. Accordingly, the appellant was not considered for the reserved category and posts meant for reserved category were filled up by giving appointment to other candidates in the said category. 3. Grievance of the appellant in the writ petition was that there was no requirement of furnishing certificate alongwith the application and in any case, the said requirement could not be treated to be mandatory, as the certificate could be produced later. Learned Single Judge rejected the plea of the appellant, holding that other candidates had duly complied with the requirement and it was mandatory to produce the certificate alongwith the application, in absence of which the appellant could not be considered against the reserved category. However, one of the original writ petitioners having duly furnished the certificate, was directed to be considered. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Clause 6 of the advertisement, it was not mentioned that the certificate should be furnished alongwith the application and therefore, the same could be furnished even late. He further submits that such a requirement cannot be treated as mandatory. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Delhi High Court in Subhash Chander v. M.C.D. 2007(3) RSJ 425 and Sunita v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others 2005(4) RSJ 478. 2 LPA No.1192 of 2009 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The appellant participated in accordance with the advertisement conditions specified in the advertisement. The advertisement clearly mentioned that the certificate should not be older than one year from the last date of submitting the application, which clearly contemplates furnishing of certificate alongwith the application. It is also not disputed that the candidates who have been selected, had duly furnished such certificates. The cut off date specified i.e. the last date of submitting the application and for furnishing the certificate, cannot be held to be directory. It is well settled that the cut off date can be specified and unless the same can be held to be irrelevant or irrational, the requirement of furnishing the certificate by specified cut off date has to be held to be mandatory, in view of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1459 (paras 31 to 34). 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 16, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3