Anu Sivaraman, J.

This writ appeal is preferred by the Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission against the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the appointment of the respondent and his adjustment in an available vacancy, if found otherwise eligible. The candidature of the respondent in the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF had been rejected by the appellants on the ground that the OBC certificate produced by him was issued 180 days after the closing date of the application. The respondent was an applicant pursuant to the notification dated 28.3.2015. The last date of application was 2.5.2015.

2. Clause 4(C) of the notification provided as follows:

"4(C): PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION AND FORMAT OF CERTIFICATES:

Candidates who wish to be considered against vacancies reserved/or seek age-relaxation must submit requisite certificate from the competent authority, in the prescribed format when such certificates are sought by concerned Regional/Sub Regional Offices at the time of interview/document verification. Otherwise, their claim for SC/ST/OBC/ExS/ Departmental candidates (Delhi Police) status will not be entertained and their candidature/applications will be considered under General (UR) category. The formats of the certificates are annexed. Certificates in any other format will not be accepted. The Commission has decided to accept OBC certificate in the prescribed format issued after the closing date but within a period of 180 days from the closing date for receipt of application."

3. The respondent was qualified in the written test and attended the Medical Board in which also he was cleared. By Exhibit P7 call letter, he was required to attend an interview on 7.12.2015. Though the first respondent was in possession of Exhibit P8 community certificate dated 20.4.2015, since a certificate was required to be produced in the format prescribed by the notification, he had procured Exhibit P9 dated 1.12.2015 and had produced it at the time of interview. However, his application was rejected stating that the OBC certificate was not issued within the stipulated date fixed for as per the notification and that he was over aged under the general category. Exhibit P10 rejection was under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that the rejection was contrary to the requirements of the notification.

4. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 stating that clause 4(C) of the notification specifically stated that the OBC certificate should be one issued within a period of 180 days from the closing date of receipt of the application, i.e., 2.5.2015. It was contended that the reason for such prescription was to ensure that only persons who are entitled to apply under the notification could be given relaxation. Exhibit R3(b) circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which mandated that OBC certificates in prescribed format issued upto 180 days from the closing date alone would be accepted was relied on in support of the contention.

5. The learned single Judge considered the contentions and held that internal communication issued between the departments of the Government cannot be relied on to restrict a benefit under the notification and that clause 4(C) of the notification is to be looked into to consider whether the certificate produced by the writ petitioner could have been accepted. On a close reading of clause 4(C) of the notification, the learned single Judge held that the permission given to OBC candidates to produce certificates issued within 180 days from the closing date of receipt of application can only be understood as an enabling clause permitting the recruiting agency to consider inclusion of any community under the OBC category within 180 days from the last date of application. Viewed in this perspective, since the community to which the respondent belonged was admit