Compliance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and selection process is essential for entitlement to the benefit of reservation.

1. Having heard counsel for the parties as also upon taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application, the delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.

2. I.A. No. 3388 of 2010 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 650 of 2010

3. In view of the fact that we have condoned the delay in filing of this appeal, we are also inclined to dispose of this appear on merits at the stage of admission itself.

4. We have accordingly heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for, the appellant-writ petitioner and Sri Saket Tiwari, J.C. to G.P.16 for the State.

5. In this intra-court appeal the appellant-writ petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 14572 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, her prayer for quashing of the corrigendum dated 23rd October, 2007 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the B.P.S.C.) cancelling her result of the Child Development Project Officer Examination, 2005, has been rejected.

6. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the appellant-writ petitioner had filed her application in response to the Advertisement No. 34 of 2005 issued by the B.P.S.C. for filling up 218 vacant sanctioned posts of Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.). The appellant- writ petitioner who had filed her application as a candidate of reserved category (extremely backward category-E.B.C.) had qualified in the preliminary test as also in the written test and her result was published in the list of 579 successful candiddates for being called in interview. The appellant-writ petitioner had also appeared in the interview on 11.9.2007, whereafter final result was published by the Commission in which name of the appellant-writ petitioner was at Serial No. 28 of 39 extremely backward category candidates. It, however, appears that the said result in the case of the appellant-writ petitioner was modified by the impugned corrigendum dated 23rd October, 2007 on the ground that she was not produced the required certificate of her belonging to E.B.C. category showing that she was not amongst the creamy layer. Cancellation of such result by the impugned corrigendum had led to filing of the connected writ application.

7. The B.P.S.C. had filed an exhaustive counter affidavit, wherein terms of the advertisement was relying to show that it was in fact part of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement itself that the candidates claiming benefit of reservation of backward category/extremely backward category had to file their caste certificate with reference to Creamy Layer in the prescribed Proforma issued by the District Magistrate and/or an Additional Collector authorized by the District Magistrate. The B.P.S.C. had also explained in its counter affidavit that the caste certificate produced by the appellant-writ petitioner did not contend the specification of her belonging to Creamy Layer and as such her result was cancelled and the B.P.S.C. had not recommended her name for appointment. The B.P.S.C. has further explained that the last date of submission of such certificate at best could be the date of interview as was clearly indicated even in the interview letter issued to the appellant writ petitioner dated 22.8.2007, but the appellant- writ petitioner had not produced the required caste certificate even on the date of her interview and therefore the Commission could not have given any weightage to the subsequent caste certificate dated 18.9.2007. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the aforementioned pleadings has recorded,the following findings:

"On the own showing of the petitioner, communications sent to her for appearing at the interview for the post of C.D.P.O. after competing successfully in the selection process, required her to produce the necessary certificate as a backward caste candidate not belonging to the Creamy Layer at the time of interview. The petitioner was interviewed on 11.9.2007. The pe