The Honourable Mr v. The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 16.12.2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.MukhopadhayaandThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.DhanapalanWrit Petition No.26965 of 2008& M.P.No.1 of 2008K.Arun Sabhapathy .. Petitionervs.1. The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, represented by its Secretary, Omandurar Govt. Estate, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.2. The Government of Tamilnadu, represented by Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.3. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai-600 104. .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the firstrespondent herein to treat the petitioner as a Backward Class Communitycandidate for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the TamilNadu State Judicial Service in the recruitment announced pursuant to theNotification No.164 dated 10.5.2008, of the first respondent herein.For petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s.AL.Gandhimathi For respondents : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi for R-1 Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P. for R-2 Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam for R-3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ OrderS.J.Mukhopadhaya,JThe petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Civil Judge(Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, conducted bythe Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, 'the TNPSC'),pursuant to the Notification No.164, dated 10.5.2008 issued by theTNPSC. Having not come out successful for appointment to the said post,he preferred the present Writ Petition to treat him as a Backward ClassCommunity candidate for appointment to the said post.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he applied forappointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to thesaid Notification dated 10.5.2008 as a Backward Class Community categorycandidate and obtained fairly good marks in the written test held on2/3.8.2008 and persons having scored marks lower than him, have beenappointed against the post reserved for the Backward Class communitycandidate, but the petitioner has not been declared as a successfulcandidate for appointment to the said post. 3. The stand taken by the first respondent-TNPSC is that thepetitioner, in Column No.7 of his OMR Application Form, claimed that hebelonged to Backward Class and had shaded the 'Box' meant for BackwardClass, but had not enclosed the required Community Certificate insupport of his claim. This is also evident from Column No.25 of hisApplication Form "Check List for production of documents", wherein, hehad not shaded the 'Box' against the Column 'Community Certificate',which clearly shows that he had not enclosed the Community Certificatein support of his claim that he belonged to Backward Class. In theresult, the petitioner was classified under 'Others' (General Category)and his Application Form was processed accordingly. The petitionerscored 229 marks in the written examination and 28 marks in the oraltest, totalling 257 marks, but could not come within the zone ofappointment, as the last candidate belonging to the General Turn(General Category) scored 264. However, the petitioner's name has beenplaced under Serial No.2 in the waiting list for the General Turn(General Category). 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmitted that the petitioner produced the Community Certificate priorto the interview, which should have been accepted, he having claimed asBackward Class Category in the OMR Application Form.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioner, the production of Community Certificate along with the OMRApplication Form, was not mandatory, but only directory. He relied onClause 5(iv) of the "Instructions, etc., to candidates" supplied by theTNPSC along with the Application Form, wherein it is stated that ".... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mere admission to the interview or inclusion of name in the list willnot confer on the candidates any right for appointment. The candidature,is therefore, provisional at all stages and the Commission reserves theright to reject any candidature at any stage, even after the selectionhas been made."Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed relianceon the following decisions of the Supreme Court/Madras High Court:(i) Charles K.Skaria and others vs. Dr.C.Mathew and others, AIR 1980 SC 1231,(ii) Dr.(Mrs).Kirti Deshmankar vs. Union of India (UoI) and others,1991 (1) SCC 104,(iii) Seema Kumari Sharma (Mrs) vs. State of H.P. and another,1998 (9) SCC 128,(iv) Dr.A.Rajapandian vs. State of T.N., 2007 (1) M.L.J. 820 (Madras High Court-DB) and(v) Premanand vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (1995 (II) MLJ 325 (Madras High Court-DB). 5. On the other hand, the stand taken by the learned Senior Counselappearing for the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the firstrespondent-TNPSC is that the submission of Community Certificate alongwith the OMR Application Form, is mandatory and on failure to submit thesame, the case of the candidate cannot be considered against thereserved post. He placed reliance on an unreported decision of aDivision Bench of this Court in the case of "R.Bagyaraj vs. TNPSC",W.P.No.18577 of 2008, dated 1.8.2008, wherein appointment pursuant tothis very Examination held on 2/3.8.2008, was considered by the DivisionBench, which rejected similar plea as was taken by the petitioner of thesaid case, he having not submitted the Community Certificate along withthe Application Form.Reliance was also placed on another Division Bench decision of thisCourt in the case of "Dr.M.Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission", reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449.6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties,noticed their rival contentions and perused the Instructions, etc., tocandidates issued by the TNPSC along with the OMR Application Form andother records.7. It is not in dispute that the candidates were to shade ColumnNo.7 of their OMR Application Form if they claim reservation against oneor other reserved category. Under Column No.25 of the said ApplicationForm, relating to Check List for production of documents, suchcandidates are to shade the portion of documents enclosed with suchApplication Form. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. So far as the Supreme Court decision in the case of "CharlesK.Skaria and others" (AIR 1980 SC 1231) (supra) is concerned, that wasa case in which the candidate therein claimed additional marks havingpassed certain test, but failed to enclose the documents in support ofthe same at the time of Application Form. The Supreme Court held that amethod of convenience of proving possession of a qualification is merelydirectory and the Prospectus in the said case itself permits theGovernment to modify the method. 9. Similar was the case relating to "Dr(Mrs.)Kirti Deshmankar"(1991 (1) SCC 104) (supra). That was the case in which the contestingrespondent therein being a Foreign student passed M.B.B.S., Examination,though satisfied all other essential conditions for admission, hisselection was challenged on the ground that the concerned respondent ofthe said case had not obtained Clearance Certificate from the concernedMinistry. The Supreme Court, in the facts, upheld the admission of suchcandidate.10. The aforesaid cases of the Supreme Court are actually notapplicable to the present case of the writ petitioner. It is not aquestion relating to the production of a mark sheet which the candidatepassed prior to the submission of the Application Form, or the other onerelating to obtaining of Clearance Certificate from the Ministryconcerned, and the same are not directly applicable to the present case.So far as the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras HighCourt in the case of "Dr.A.Rajapandian" (2007 (1) M.L.J. 820) (supra) isconcerned, the same related to signature under each and every page,which connotes the authenticity of the person who certified the accuracyand correctness of the particulars provided and furnished by him. What is to be determined in the present case is whether thesubmission of the Community Certificate as per the Instructions, etc.,supplied to the candidates by the TNPSC, along with the OMR ApplicationForm, is mandatory or directory.11. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Clause 1(vi) of theInstructions, etc., to candidates supplied by the TNPSC along with theOMR Application Form, which reads as follows: "1. HOW TO APPLY................(vi) The filling in of the application formcorrectly and completely and sending it with all thedocuments as required in the Commission's"Notification / Advertisement" / Brochure and"Instructions etc. to Candidates" form part of thetest for selection. Failure in this regard willentail summary rejection of the application. (emphasis supplied) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. So far as Clause 5 relating to "Other Conditions" in theInstructions, etc., supplied to the candidates by the TNPSC along withthe OMR Application Form is concerned, in particular, sub-clause (iv),which was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioner, but it cannot be read in isolation or part of the samecannot be relied upon, as it has to be read along with the other sub-clause (iii), which are quoted hereunder:"5. OTHER CONDITIONS:........(iii) Any claim by a candidate that he belongsto Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or BackwardClass or Most Backward Class/Denotified Community orthat he has obtained a higher or additionalqualification made after the submission of anapplication will not be entertained.(iv) The claims of the candidates with regardto the date of birth, educational/technicalqualifications and community are accepted only onthe information furnished by them in theirapplications. Their candidature, therefore will beprovisional and subject to the Commission satisfyingitself, about their age, educational/technicalqualifications, community etc. Mere admission to theinterview or inclusion of name in the list will notconfer on the candidates any right for appointment.The candidature, is therefore, provisional at allstages and the Commission reserves the right toreject any candidature at any stage, even after theselection has been made...... " 13. From the aforesaid Clauses, it would be clear that theverification of qualification, community etc., can be made prior to theappointment/joining of a candidate, and the TNPSC reserves its right toreject the candidature of any candidate at any stage even afterselection has been made, if any of such information given or certificateproduced is found to be wrong or forged.14. Clause 15 in the Instructions, etc., to candidates supplied bythe TNPSC along with the OMR Application Form, relates to "Production ofevidence for claims made in the Application". Sub-clause (f) thereinrelates to "Community Certificate". Therein, the candidates have beenwarned that if the community recorded in the certificate produced bythem from the competent authority is not included in the list of suchcategory of the Caste(s), then their cases will be considered only underthe "others" (i.e. 'unreserved post' (General Turn) in the presentcase). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. From Clause 1(vi) of the Instructions etc., to candidatessupplied by the TNPSC along with the OMR Application Form, as it isevident that if the Application Form is not correctly filled up and insupport of the statement, documents as required, under the Commission's(TNPSC's) Notification/Advertisement/Brochure and Instructions etc., tocandidates, are not sent along with the OMR Application Form by thecandidates, the same entails summary rejection and to that extent wehold that non-enclosure of the Community Certificate in support of theclaim for reservation against the post, is mandatory for the purpose ofExamination in question (Civil Judge (Junior Division) ).16. It is not in dispute that 201 posts were advertised in theNotification dated 10.5.2008 and certain percentage of posts werereserved for one or other categories, such as SC, ST, BC, etc. It isinformed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TNPSC that asper their Guidelines, they call for successful candidates for Interviewtwice the number of the posts meant for one or other category or againstthe unreserved post. For such determination as to who are the successfulcandidates to be called for the Interview against one or other reservedpost, for calculation of twice the number of successful candidates ofsuch reserved category, it is essential for the TNPSC to find out as towho belong to such category and the same can be verified on the basis ofthe claim as was made by the successful candidates of such category,along with the relevant Community Certificate in support of such claimin their OMR Application Form. Therefore, for such purpose also, it isnecessary to submit the Community Certificate along with the OMRApplication Form and not at the time or before the Interview, assuggested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We therefore hold that the submission of a Community Certificatealong with the OMR Application Form, is mandatory and not directory forthe purpose of the present case and in the absence of such CommunityCertificate, the candidature of the candidate cannot be considered evenfor the Interview against the reserved category post.17. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court inthe case of "R.Bagyaraj" (W.P.No.18577 of 2008, dated 1.8.2008) (supra),wherein, this Court rejected the claim of the petitioner therein forappointment against a reserved category he having failed to submitCommunity Certificate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. We find no merits in this case. The Writ Petition isaccordingly dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcsTo1. The Secretary, The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Govt. Estate, Mount Road, Chennai-600 002.2. The Secretary to Govt., The Government of Tamilnadu, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.3. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai-600 104. 3 cc To Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate, SR.70064 & 70234.1 cc To Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, Advocate, SR.70206.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.70489.W.P.No.26965 of 2008 GG(CO)RVL 26.12.2008