JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(a) That, your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quashed the selection/appointment of Respondent no 4. (b) That, your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent department to give the appointment to the petitioner from the back date along with all consequential benefits. (c) That, your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent department to considered two certificates, one is Land Less and second one is Non employment certificate and award 4.5 marks for the purpose of selection or evaluation of documents for the post of Animal husbandry/breeding in the interest of justice.” 2. In the month of February 2020, Department of Animal Husbandry issued an advertisement dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) thereby inviting applications for 239 posts of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon, Class-IV, in different category. Afore 239 posts of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon were further allocated District wise. Though 15 seats were allocated to District Sirmaur, but out of 15 seats, one was reserved for disabled person. 3. Petitioner herein, who belongs to District Sirmaur, being fully eligible, applied for one post of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon reserved for disabled quota vide application dated 11.03.2020 along with documents. Since petitioner herein was eligible to participate on the strength of his qualification, respondent-department called him for interview/verification of documents/counselling on 05.10.2021. At the time of evaluation of documents, petitioner herein produced two certificates dated 21.06.2021, one non-employment certificate and other landless person certificate (Annexure P-2 and P-3), thereby showing that he is unemployed and does not have any land in his name. On the strength of afore documents, though petitioner herein claimed 2.5 and 2 marks respectively, in terms of advertisement dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), but such benefit was not given to him by the Selection Committee on the ground that documents adduced on record at the time of making application i.e. non-employment certificate and landless person certificate dated 11.03.2020 were not valid, rather those stood expired and as such, he cannot claim marks on the strength of certificates, which have been issued subsequently. 4. 4. Since the Selection Committee did not award the additional 4.5 marks (i.e., 2.5 marks for the non-employment certificate and 2 marks for the landless certificate), the petitioner was unable to secure a place in the merit list prepared for the one seat reserved under the disabled quota. Against this background, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that Selection Committee wrongly not granted 4.5 marks i.e. 2.5 marks for non- employment certificate and 2 marks for landless person certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of evaluation of documents. He submitted that had Selection Committee allotted 4.5 marks, as detailed hereinabove, to the petitioner, he would have ranked higher in the merit in comparison to private-respondent No.4, who has been otherwise declared selected against the post reserved for disabled person. Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel representing the petitioner, further argued that no doubt at the time of making application dated 11.03.2020, petitioner had enclosed certificates of non-employment and landless person, which on that relevant date had lost their validity, but once petitioner at the time of verification of documents submitted certificates dated 21.06.2021 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), he ought to have been awarded marks qua the same. He submitted that since at the time of making of application, petitioner was eligible on account of his having possessed requisite essential qualification, he was permitted by the respondent-department to participate in the selection process, but since certificates on the basis of which petitioner or other similar situate persons could have been granted additional marks were produced at the time of evaluation, those were required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. 6. To the contrary, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents No.1 to 3/State and Mr. 6. To the contrary, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents No.1 to 3/State and Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing the private- respondent No.4, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents inasmuch as non-grant of marks to the petitioner qua certificates dated 21.06.2021 adduced by him at the time of verification of documents, vehemently argued that cut-off date, as per advertisement dated 26.02.2020 was 30.03.2020, which was subsequently extended to 25.07.2020 and as such, documents, if any, qua which candidate subsequently could have claimed marks were required to be submitted on or before afore date, but since certificates of his being unemployed and landless person submitted by the petitioner were not valid on that relevant date, there was no occasion, if any, for the Selection Committee to take into consideration the certificates dated 21.06.2021 submitted by the petitioner at the time of verification of documents. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing the respondent No.4 vehemently argued that bare perusal of the advertisement clearly reveals that application, complete in all respect would mean that candidate should have also enclosed documents intended to be relied upon subsequently. They submitted that documents/certificates, if any, submitted by the petitioner or other similar situate person before afore date could only be taken into consideration at the time of awarding of marks by the Selection Committee during verification/documentation process. They submitted that since at the time of verification of documents, certificates submitted by the petitioner along with application dated 11.03.2020 were found to be invalid, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while denying marks to the petitioner qua afore two certificates. 7. I have heard the parties and gone through the record of the case. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner while making application dated 11.03.2020 in terms of advertisement dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) had enclosed certificates of his being unemployed and landless person dated 31.10.2018, which were only valid for a period of one year, meaning thereby, documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of his making application were not valid. But since petitioner was possessing requisite essential qualification i.e. 10th/matriculate, he was permitted to participate in the selection process. 9. During verification of documents, petitioner submitted two certificates dated 21.06.2021, certifying that the petitioner, besides being unemployed, is also a landless person. But since petitioner was possessing requisite essential qualification i.e. 10th/matriculate, he was permitted to participate in the selection process. 9. During verification of documents, petitioner submitted two certificates dated 21.06.2021, certifying that the petitioner, besides being unemployed, is also a landless person. Selection Committee after having examined the afore documents adduced at the time of verification, refused to grant him 4.5 marks (2.5 marks for non-employment certificate and 2 marks for landless person certificate) on the ground that fresh documents submitted by him at the time of evaluation cannot be looked into, rather documents, if any, submitted by him at the time of making application dated 11.03.2020 are required to be taken into consideration. As has been noticed hereinabove, certificates submitted by the petitioner of his being unemployed and landless person dated 31.10.2018 were valid for one year, meaning thereby, at the time of making application by the petitioner, those stood expired. 10. At this stage, it is apt to take note of the fact that as per advertisement, selection was to be done on the basis of parameters fixed by the Government vide notification dated 17.04.2017, whereby upto 85 marks in total could have been given to one candidate on the basis of his/her educational qualification and 15 marks were kept for evaluation, out of which 2.5 marks, one could receive on account of his being unemployed and 2 marks, on account of his being landless person. As per merit list adduced on record (Annexure P-7) (available at page No.40 of the paper-book), petitioner herein came to be granted 40.800 marks on account of his having possessed requisite qualification and one mark for hearing impairment, as a result thereof, petitioner in total came to be allocated 41.800 marks. Had Selection Committee granted 2.5 marks on account of his being unemployed and 2 marks on account of landless person, petitioner would have got 46.3 marks which are more marks than the selected candidate namely Mr. Pawan Sharma, who in total got 42.814 marks. 11. Had Selection Committee granted 2.5 marks on account of his being unemployed and 2 marks on account of landless person, petitioner would have got 46.3 marks which are more marks than the selected candidate namely Mr. Pawan Sharma, who in total got 42.814 marks. 11. Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand, is “whether certificates of subsequent date i.e. 21.06.2021, certifying therein that petitioner besides his being unemployed, is also landless person, could have been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee at the time of verification of documents or it could only grant marks, if any, under evaluation category on the basis of documents submitted by the petitioner or other similarly situate persons at the time of his making application, pursuant to advertisement dated 26.02.2020?” 12. Admittedly in the case at hand, petitioner while making application dated 11.03.2020, had annexed two certificates showing him to be unemployed and landless person dated 31.10.2018, but since validity of afore certificates was only for a period of one year, no marks, if any, could have been granted qua the same during verification of documents. 13. Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that at the time of making application in terms of advertisement dated 26.02.2020, respondent-department was only required to see whether petitioner possesses requisite qualification for the post in question or not?; if yes, he would be permitted to participate in the selection process, but marks, on the basis of documents could have been granted by the Selection Committee on the basis of documents adduced on record by the petitioner or other similarly situate persons at the time of verification of documents. He submitted that since at the time of verification of documents, he adduced on record two certificates dated 21.06.2021, showing therein him to be unemployed and landless person, Selection Committee could not have denied him marks, otherwise allocated for such certificate i.e. 2.5 and 2 marks, respectively. 14. To the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing the respondent No.4 reiterated that no marks, if any, could have been granted by the Selection Committee to the petitioner on the basis of documents produced by him at the time of evaluation of documents, rather, at that juncture, documents, if any, adduced on record by the petitioner along with his application were required to be taken into consideration. They submitted that since certificates annexed by the petitioner along with his application dated 11.03.2020 had lost their validity, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while not granting marks allocated for such certificates, especially when advertisement provides for no relaxation in that regard. 15. True it is that petitioner herein at the time of his making application dated 11.03.2020 had adduced on record two certificates, showing him to be unemployed and landless person dated 31.10.2018, but since same were valid for a period of one year, no marks could have been granted by the Selection Committee qua the same, but question which needs to be answered at this juncture is “whether certificates of non-employment and landless person, adduced on record by the petitioner at the time of his making application dated 11.03.2020 in terms of advertisement dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), can be said to be part of the essential qualification or not?, if not, whether same could be considered at the time of verification of documents?” 16. This Court is of the view that cut-off date, as provided in the advertisement, which initially was 30.03.2020, but subsequently was enhanced to 25.07.2020, was only for the purpose of seeing essential qualification i.e. educational qualification. Since at that time, petitioner possessed requisite qualification i.e. 10th/matriculate, he was rightly permitted by the respondent-department to participate in the selection process, however, validity of documents qua which some additional marks could be granted to the candidates concerned, in terms of advertisement, was required to be seen at the time of verification of documents. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that non-employment certificate as well as landless certificate are not issued for indefinite period, rather they are issued for a limited period. Certificates dated 31.10.2018 issued in favour of the petitioner, which he had annexed at the time of his making application, were valid only for a period of one year, but sometimes a situation may arise that after making application, their may be delay in conclusion of selection process, initiated pursuant to some advertisement, but in that situation, certificates, if any, adduced by person concerned at the time of his making application, cannot be considered on account of his having rendered invalid, rather, in that situation, person concerned would be permitted to adduce on record valid certificate showing him to be unemployed or landless person. 17. 17. Though it came to be vehemently argued at the behest of respondents that at the time of his making application, in terms of advertisement dated 26.02.2020, petitioner or other similarly situate persons were to required adduce on record valid certificates, but as has been noticed hereinabove, certificates of income, non-employment, landless etc. are issued for a particular period, which after its expiry cannot be renewed, rather shall be issued afresh. Since at the time of his making application, non-employment and landless certificates dated 31.10.2018 stood expired, there was otherwise no reason for the petitioner to annex the same, but it appears that he annexed the same to demonstrate that he is unemployed and does not possess any land. 18. Though on the basis of certificates submitted by the petitioner at the time of his making application, no marks could be allocated, for the reason that those were not valid, but once at the time of verification of documents, he could produce valid certificates, showing therein that he besides being unemployed is also landless person, Selection Committee was under obligation to consider such certificates and grant appropriate marks. Very purpose and object of issuance of certificates of unemployment and landless person is to demonstrate that person concerned, in whose favour such certificates are issued, is unemployed and landless. Once petitioner was able to establish on relevant date i.e. at the time of verification of documents that he is unemployed and does not possess any land, he ought to have been granted marks kept for these certificates. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Pushp Mala Vs. The Registrar General, H.P. High Court, CWP No.3938 of 2023, wherein it came to be argued at the behest of respondents/State that petitioner woke up to the need of producing a valid non-employment certificate only after conclusion of selection process, but Division Bench held that once at the time of selection, candidate concerned was able to prove that he is unemployed and does not possess land, certificates adduced on record were required to be considered by the Selection Committee. Relevant Paras of afore judgment reads as under: “20) In Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE, 2005 (9) SCC 779 , the Supreme Court held as under:- “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 for 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) 21) Thus the important thing to be seen is that while eligibility i.e possessing education qualification should be possessed by the cut off date, for claiming benefit of reservation, proof of eligibility to claim such reservation need not be submitted by cut off date. Even if proof of claim of eligibility for reservation is produced beyond cut off date, the candidate can be considered for grant of the said benefit and cannot be denied relief. 22) In Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Board, 2016 (4) SCC 754 , the appellant had sought appointment to the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category, but the said certificate was not submitted with the application and submitted after the last date mentioned in the advertisement. The appellant was therefore not selected on that ground, but the Supreme Court held that the candidature of those candidates, who belonged to reserved categories, could not be rejected simply on account of late submission of caste certificate. The appellant was therefore not selected on that ground, but the Supreme Court held that the candidature of those candidates, who belonged to reserved categories, could not be rejected simply on account of late submission of caste certificate. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to a particular category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to the said category. It was not as if the petitioners therein did not belong to the reserved category prior to the cut off date or that they acquire the status of belonging to the said category only on the date of issuance of the certificate. It held that necessitating upon a certificate to be issued prior to the cut off date would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rational objective sought to be achieved. 23) In Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, 1980 (2) SCC 752 , the Supreme Court held that the candidates who got admission even though they had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma alongwith their applications, could not have their admission to a Post Graduate cancelled provided they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed, even if they had submitted the diploma with delay. It observed that the important question is whether or not the candidate secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course and if he did have the diploma some relaxation in producing evidence of the diploma can be granted. It held that the emphasis should be on the diploma and the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of diploma and is not an independent factor. It held that what is essential is the possession of the diploma before the given date and what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To make mandatory, the date of acquiring the qualification before the last date for application make sense. But if it is shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, to invalidate the merit factor because proof was adduced a few days later, would not be proper. To make mandatory, the date of acquiring the qualification before the last date for application make sense. But if it is shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, to invalidate the merit factor because proof was adduced a few days later, would not be proper. 24) We may also point out that the decision in Dolly Chhanda (2 Supra) was applied by the Supreme Court in Archana Chouhan Pundhir (Dr.) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2011 (11) SCC 486 . 25) Similar view has also been taken in Sweety Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others decided on 22.09.2023 in Civil Appeal No.6072 of 2023, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the factum of eligibility is different from factum of proof thereof, and that if the person possesses eligibility before the date of actual selection, he cannot be denied the benefit because its proof is produced later. 26) Moreover one post of Scheduled Tribe category in the cadre of Peon/orderly etc. had been directed to be kept vacant by this Court in its order dt.20.06.2023 in CMP No.7458 of 2023. Therefore, there is a post available and vacant in which the petitioner can be accommodated. 27) In our view there was no necessity to compel the petitioner to implead all the selected candidates in the Scheduled Tribe category as her appointment is not going to displace anybody, who was already appointed. 28) However, we are of the opinion that the impleadment of the State of Himachal Pradesh is necessary since the appointment order is to be issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, we suo moto implead the State of Himachal Pradesh represented by its Secretary Home, State of Himachal Pradesh as a party respondent.” 19. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Shefali Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No.7393 of 2021, decided on 01.08.2025, wherein this Court, having taken note of various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that in case document required to be produced at the time of interview or evaluation of documents was in possession of the candidate concerned, but he/she failed to produce the same at the time of evaluation of documents or interview, same can be subsequently considered for awarding marks, if any, provided qua the same. Relevant Paras of afore judgment reads as under: “21. Though having perused judgments pressed into service by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, this Court cannot have any quarrel with the submission made by learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner that in case document required to be produced at the time of interview or evaluation of documents was in possession of the candidate concerned, but he/she failed to produce the same at the time of evaluation of documents or interview, same can be subsequently considered for awarding marks, if any, provided qua the same. However having carefully perused certificate dated 11.1.2021, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned senior counsel for the petitioner that afore certificate dated 11.1.2021, was valid certificate and as such, same should have been take into consideration by the respondents for awarding 01 additional mark. As has been taken note herein above, document dated 11.1.2021, if seen juxtaposing, model/sample certificate usually issued to NSS volunteer (Annexure P-9) nowhere suggests that same to be NSS certificate, rather same suggests that petitioner while doing basic science successfully completed three years of NSS as per Course Curriculum from 2011-12 to 2013-14 Session. It nowhere suggests that petitioner being NSS volunteer completed 240 hours of regular activities in the period of two years and attended one annual camp, which otherwise in terms of advertisement could only be taken into consideration for awarding 01 additional mark. Had petitioner produced on record valid certificate on prescribed format, certifying therein that petitioner had attended one annual special camp duly signed by Vice Chancellor, Programme Coordinator and Principal, this court would have definitely directed the respondents to award 01 additional mark in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as detailed herein above. 22. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of relevant extract of Part-II (Evaluation of 15 marks), which has been referred herein above. A careful examination of the criteria outlined in the advertisement clearly indicates that a candidate seeking to obtain one mark must hold an NSS certificate of at least one year, issued by the head of the concerned institution.” 20. Admittedly in the case at hand, petitioner was able to produce certificates of his being unemployed and landless person at the time of verification of documents, if it is so, he was required to be granted additional marks qua the same. Admittedly in the case at hand, petitioner was able to produce certificates of his being unemployed and landless person at the time of verification of documents, if it is so, he was required to be granted additional marks qua the same. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that that cut-off date, as provided under advertisement was only relevant for seeing essential qualification, pursuant to which petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process, but certainly, he could have adduced on record fresh certificates at the time of evaluation of documents to demonstrate that on the given date, he is unemployed and does not possess any land. 21. Now question, which needs to be decided is “whether in the event of petitioner’s being selected on account of awarding of marks, as detailed hereinabove, private respondent No.4 would be ousted or not?” 22. Undoubtedly, respondent No.4 pursuant to his selection has already joined the services. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that private respondent never came to be appointed against the post in question on account of misrepresentation, if any, on his part, rather mistake, if any, is of the Selection Committee. Since private respondent has been working for the last few years, it may not be justifiable to oust him at this stage, rather in peculiar facts and circumstances, his services need to be protected. 23. At this juncture, it is apt to take note of judgment titled Vikas Pratap Singh and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 , wherein taking note of the fact that the appellants  (therein)  had  successfully  undergone  training  and  were serving the State for more than three years, were allowed to continue in service even though their selection was interfered with. Para 28 of the judgment, being relevant, is extracted hereinafter: “28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.” 24. Similar situation arose in Anmol Kumar Tiwari and others Versus State of Jharkhand and others, (2021) 5 SCC 424 . The Apex Court confirmed the decision of the High Court that had directed re- instatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were though beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner, but were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the said select list. Relevant para from the judgment reads as under:- “11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case, where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present.” 25. In the case at hand, private respondent No.4 cannot be said to be at fault, rather it is the department, which has offered appointment to him and as such, it would be too harsh if he is ordered to be removed from service by the respondent-department itself. At the same time, petitioner also cannot be denied the relief prayed by him in the instant petition, since he was fully eligible to be appointed against the post in question. 26. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the instant petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon, Class-IV, but while doing so, appointment already given to private respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed, rather, same shall remain protected. Since, petitioner has not worked against the post in question till date, he shall not be entitled for monetary benefits, but for the period he was unable to join on account of discrepancies, as discussed hereinabove, shall be considered on notional basis for seniority and continuity. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.