The Chairman and The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vs M. Gnanaselvi

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The Respondent claims to be a destitute widow. Her husband died on 21.12.2002. She made an application for the post of Typist in Group-IV, pursuant to the Employment Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, for which results were published during the month of July, 2009. However, the name of the Respondent was withheld for want of production of destitute widow certificate. She appeared for certificate verification on 16.12.2008 and at that time she produced all the certificates, including the destitute widow certificate. But, in the results published on 28.07.2009, her name was withheld. Aggrieved over the same, she filed W.P.(MD) No. 9596/2009 before this Court seeking a direction to the Appellants to issue appointment order to her for the post of typist. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 14.12.2009, issued a direction to the Appellants to issue appointment order to the Respondent for the post of Typist. Challenging the same, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is before this Court with this writ appeal.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the records carefully.

Indisputably, at the time when the Respondent made the application, she did not produce the destitute widow certificate. However, at the time of certificate verification, i.e. before the finalisation of the select list, she produced such a certificate before the Appellants but, the same was not accepted by the Appellants on the ground that the destitute widow certificate was not produced along with the application, as stated in the information brochure.

In our considered opinion, production of destitute widow certificate, along with the application, is not absolutely necessary. When a similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No. 585 of 2009, decided on 11.11.2009, to which one of us was a party (Justice S. Nagamuthu), the Division Bench has taken a view that there are certain certificates which are to be necessarily submitted along with the application and there are certain other certificates production of which would be suffice if such production is made before the finalisation of the select list. In the said case, the precise question which came up for consideration was as to whether production of community certificate along with the application was necessary and whether the belated production of the same would not satisfy the requirements. After having considered various aspects, the Division Bench took the view that insofar as the community certificate is concerned, it would be suffice if the same is produced just before the finalisation of the select list. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed as follows:

Insofar as the later kind of certificates are concerned, for entertaining the application, these certificates, which relate only to special qualifications or consideration, are not that much material. Even in the absence of these certificates, the applications are to be entertained and when the question of considering the special qualifications or status arises, it would be suffice, if the certificates are made available to the Commission. For example, if a candidate claims that he/she is entitled for being considered under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community and if the required Community Certificate is not produced, his/her application cannot be rejected, but instead he/she has to be treated under the open quota. For any reason, if such a community Certificate is produced before the date of finalisation of the provisional selection list based on the cut off marks secured in the written examination, in our opinion, the same would be suffice.

The principle stated in the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, there is no dispute that such destitute widow certificate was produced by the Respondent at the time of certificate verification i.e. before the finalisation of the select list. Thus, as per the above judgment, the Respondent has satisfied the requirement and, therefore, she should have been issued with appointment order, provided she satisfies the other requirements. The learned Single Judge has come to the right conclusion in this regard, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.