was essential for such candidate to submit non-creamy layer certificate as on 31.03.2016. In merit list published earlier, name of petitioner finds place at sr. no. 7 whereas name of selected candidates do not appear in the said list. It is stated that on 15.01.2016, a corrigendum to advertisement has been issued facilitating women candidates belonging to open category to tender non-creamy layer certificate drawn as on or before 17.11.2015. It is stated in proforma of online application prescribed by respondents, no column was provided requiring women candidates belonging to open category to submit non-creamy certificate. As a result of such failure, meritorious candidates were left out of consideration. It appears that after publication of corrigendum, contesting respondents tendered non-creamy layer certificate within stipulated period and as such were considered for selection and appointment. Admittedly, petitioner has secured 162 marks in the written test whereas the selected candidates i.e. respondents 4 and 5 have secured 168 and 166 marks respectively. It is thus clear that the selected candidates are more meritorious than petitioner.
