respondent when she states that no such chance was given to the respondent, as if such an opportunity had been given to the candidate, who has worked hard and cleared all stages of the selection process, he would not allow an opportunity of public employment to go abegging only for non-production of the photocopy of a document which he already possesses, and the original of which had already been produced by him at the stage of document verification. This is particularly compelling given the fact that the respondent has diligently pursued his legal remedies at each stage of the process. It is not the case of the petitioners that even the original of the EWS certificate was not produced by the respondent at the stage of document verification. The production of the original document satisfies the substantive requirement of proving eligibility, while the requirement of the photocopy thereof is merely procedural in nature. Clearly, therefore, the respondent had not been granted an opportunity to produce the photocopy of the EWS certificate. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the objection of the petitioners to the Impugned Order.
