Judgment :- S. NAGAMUTHU, J A stand, too technical, taken by the appellant to deprive the first respondent of his rightful claim for being considered for a Governmental Post, negatived in the Writ Petition is canvassed again in this Writ Appeal. 2. The appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission called for applications from eligible candidates for Group IV Service [for the posts of Village Administrative Officers] during the year 2007. Being eligible for the said post, the first respondent duly submitted her application. Indisputably, she belongs to Kattunayakan Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. But the first respondent could not submit her Community Certificate obtained from the competent authority along with her application. However, her application was entertained and she was allowed to participate in the written examination. Since she had secured required cut off marks, she was provisionally selected and called for certificate verification. 3. As a matter of fact, the first respondent made application in the year 1997 itself to the competent authority viz, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, for issuance of Community Certificate. However, such certificate was not issued in time and that is the reason why, the first respondent could not submit her Community Certificate along with her application. 4. Evenon 30.10.2007, when she appeared for certificate verification before the appellant, she could not produce her Community Certificate, since her request for issuance of Community Certificate was still pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer. She explained to the appellant about the peculiar circumstances in which she had been placed. In the meanwhile, the second respondent/the District Collector, sent a letter dated 011. 2007 informing the appellant/Service Commission that the request of the first respondent for Community Certificate was under consideration. At last, she got Community Certificate on 211. 2007. But, the said Community Certificate was not in the prescribed format as prescribed by the appellant. However, along with a written representation, she submitted the same to the appellant. Despite the same, the first respondent was not appointed and instead, by letter dated 11.06.2008, she was informed by the appellant that the provisional selection was cancelled, as she had not produced the community Certificate along with her application. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 06.08.2008. Challenging the same, the appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has come forward with the present Writ Appeal. 5. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 06.08.2008. Challenging the same, the appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has come forward with the present Writ Appeal. 5. In this Writ Appeal, it is contended that as per the instructions to the candidates and information brochure issued by the appellant, the candidates were required to submit the copies of the necessary documents along with applications to prove the qualification, age, experience, community etc and it was made clear that in case of failure to produce the same, the applications shall be summarily rejected. Based on the above clauses, it is contended, since in the given case, the first respondent had failed to produce the Communicate Certificate in time, her candidature was rejected. Reliance is placed on Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that non-production of necessary certificates along with application within the cut off date shall disentitle the candidate from being considered. Therefore, according to the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the Writ Petition. 6. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records carefully. 7. There can be no controversy that the instructions to candidates and the brochure bind the candidates and the Service Commission, according to which, the candidates are bound to produce all the necessary documents/certificates along with the application. In general, the application shall be rejected for non-production of such certificates/documents. But, in our considered opinion, an exception can be carved out to the same. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to clarify that all certificates, which are required to be produced along with application, cannot be treated equally. There are some certificates, like certificates relating to the basic qualification etc., which are essential, without which the applications cannot be entertained at all. On the other hand, there are certain other certificates, like Community Certificate, certificates relating to special consideration, like sports certificate, NCC, NSS Certificates, etc., which are not essential for entertaining the application of the candidates. There are some certificates, like certificates relating to the basic qualification etc., which are essential, without which the applications cannot be entertained at all. On the other hand, there are certain other certificates, like Community Certificate, certificates relating to special consideration, like sports certificate, NCC, NSS Certificates, etc., which are not essential for entertaining the application of the candidates. So, there can be no controversy that non-production of the former kind of certificates within the cut off date, shall be a ground to reject the application summarily, as mentioned in the instructions to the candidates and information brochure, because, they relate to the essential qualifications for making application. To put it otherwise, unless the Service Commission is satisfied about the eligibility criteria based on the said certificates, it cannot entertain the applications, and therefore, the applications in such an event are to be necessarily rejected. 8. 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 Schedule 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 finalization of the provisional selection list based on the cut off marks secured in the written examination, in our opinion, the same would be suffice. 9. It is needless to point out that different cut off marks are, generally, prescribed for different communities, such as Backward Class, Most Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The Community Certificate is required only to find out whether a candidate is eligible for being considered under the reserved quota and not for any other purpose. Any other approach would result in deprivation of valuable right of a candidate for being considered against the seats reserved for which she/he would be otherwise entitled. The Community Certificate is required only to find out whether a candidate is eligible for being considered under the reserved quota and not for any other purpose. Any other approach would result in deprivation of valuable right of a candidate for being considered against the seats reserved for which she/he would be otherwise entitled. Therefore, in our considered opinion, if the Community Certificate is produced before the cut off mark is finalized to call the candidates either for interview or for certificate verification, it would meet the requirements. 10. Much reliance has been made on the Judgment of this Court in Dr.Vennilas case. In our opinion, the principles stated therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as the facts are distinguishable. In the above case, the Division Bench had no occasion, as it was not argued before the Division Bench, to distinguish the essential certificates, which are required for entertaining the applications and the certificates, which are only for the purpose of claiming special status or privilege like reservation. Therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench in Dr.Vennilas case does not come to the rescue of the appellant. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in C.Stella Mary v. TNPSC reported in 2009 (6) MLJ 1211 , [of which one of us is the author JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU], wherein delayed production of a destitute widow certificate was considered. Relying on the two Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Charles K.Skaria and others v. Dr.C.Mathew and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1230 : 1980 2 SCC 752 , and Dolly Chhanda V.Chairman, Jee reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 , it has been held that non-production of the certificates along with application cannot be a ground to reject the application. In paragraph 20 of the said Judgment in Charles K.Skarias case, it has been held as follows:- "20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor. The prospectus does say : (4)(b) 10% to diploma holders in the selection of candidates to M.S., and M.D., courses in the respective subjects or sub-specialities. 13. Certificates to be produced:- In all cases true copies of the following documents have to be produced:- (K) Any other certificates required along with the application. This composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence". 12. 12. In the second case, in Dolly Chhanda v. Chariman, Jee and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 5043 : (2005) 9 SCC 779 :(2004) 4 MLJ 111, in paragraph 9, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 9. Theappellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI category. She comes from a very humble background, her father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29.06.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is unjust and illegal". 13. After referring to the above two Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of Stella Marys case, it is held as follows:- "15. Applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments to the facts of the case, one can be sure that it is not appropriate for the respondent to stick on to a technicality which is not only merely procedural but it defeats the very object sought to be achieved. As held by the Honble Supreme court, what is crucial is as to whether as on the last date for submission of application the petitioner was a destitute widow or not. Yes, is the incontrovertible answer to the said question. 16. Admittedly, long before the written examination, the petitioner submitted a copy of the destitute widow certificate. Therefore, having regard to the very object of reservation made for destitute widows, and having regard to the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, in the case on hand, the reason stated in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being considered under the reserved quota for destitute widows is not at all sustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed". 14. 14. Atthis juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Premanand v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1995 2 MLJ 325 , wherein, in paragraph 5, the Division Bench held as follows:- ."It must be pointed out that clause 13.5 only prescribed the procedure in order to eliminate persons who do not belong to that category, to take undue advantage. As long as it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to that category of children born of intercaste marriage between S.C/S.T and Forward Community and in addition to this, he was able to produce the certificate before the application was scrutinized for admission, rejection of such application amounted to giving greater value to the procedure than to the substantive right. The procedure is intended facilitate enforcement of substantive right and not to defeat the substantive right. Procedure is hand-maid of justice and to defeat justice. Therefore, the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily when it rejected the application, even though it had before it the certificate produced by the petitioner to the effect that he satisfied the category of children born of inter-caste marriage between S.C./S.T and Forward Community. As long as the application was filed in time and the applicant was able to satisfy the requirement of production of certificate from the appropriate authority, before his application was considered for selection, it was not at all open to the Selection Committee to refuse to consider the application only on the ground that such a certificate had not been produced along with the application". .15. We are in full agreement with the said view taken by the Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, the Judgments in Dr.M.Vennilas case and Premanands came to be considered in a batch of Writ of Petitions before the First Bench of this Court in Dr.A.Rajapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (5) CTC 529 , [presided over by the Honble The Chief Justice A.P.SHAH], wherein the Division Bench has discussed, as we have done here, the Judgment in Dr.M.Vennilas case and Premanands case and approved the view taken in Premanands case. 16. As we have already stated, the community Certificate, though submitted belatedly, but, before the preparation of the provisional selection list, would be suffice. 16. As we have already stated, the community Certificate, though submitted belatedly, but, before the preparation of the provisional selection list, would be suffice. The principle stated by the Honble Supreme Court in the above two cases followed in Stella Marys case, and the Division Bench Judgments cited supra needs to be applied to the present case. 17. Reservationin Governmental jobs and educational institutions has been made with a laudable object of uplifting the downtrodden people like Backward Class, Most Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In this regard, we do not propose to list out all those Judgments relating to reservation including Mandal Commission case [Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 of the Honble Supreme Court, as the same would only add to the length of this Judgment. Suffice it for us to say, while looking into the facts of the case, the very object of providing such reservation cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, we are of the opinion that on a too technical ground relating to mere procedure, like the one which is raised by the appellant in the case on hand, the rightful claim of a person, who needs upliftment by the benefit of reservation cannot be deprived of. What all that is necessary is whether such a person really belongs to the community, which gets the benefit of reservation. 18. Yet another factual aspect also needs consideration. It is not the case as though the first respondent was recalcitrant in not making any attempt to get the Community Certificate from the competent authority. It is also not the case as though the first respondent is a casteless woman. After all, she does not live in a casteless society. By birth, she has acquired a caste known as "Kattunayakan Community", which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. Indisputably, she made application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority in this regard for issuance of Community Certificate in the year 1997. Though her immediate elder brother was issued with such a Community Certificate, for the reasons best known to the second respondent, the urgency of the second respondent to submit the Community Certificate for employment fell into the deaf ears and the matter was kept pending for a decade. Though her immediate elder brother was issued with such a Community Certificate, for the reasons best known to the second respondent, the urgency of the second respondent to submit the Community Certificate for employment fell into the deaf ears and the matter was kept pending for a decade. Several representations, several personal meetings and several communications made by the first respondent to the second respondent as well as to the higher authorities were of no avail. 19. It could also be seen from the records that the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected her claim, and thereafter, the District Collector had to intervene in the matter and at his behest, and after a thorough enquiry, undoubtedly, it was concluded that the first respondent also belongs to Kattunayakan community, to which her brother also belongs to, and thereafter, the Community Certificate was issued to the first respondent. Because of the lethargic attitude of the Revenue Authorities to consider the request of the first respondent for issuance of Community Certificate in time, she cannot be made to suffer at all at the hands of the appellant. As we have already stated, when ultimately it has been concluded that the first respondent belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community, we hardly find any reason to reject her claim for appointment under the quota for the said community. 20. It is true that the first respondent did not produce the Community Certificate before the provisional list of selected candidates was finalized. On this score, in normal course, applying the principles stated above, this Court would have held that the claim of the first respondent for consideration under the reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe should be rejected. But, we do not propose to do so, for the simple reason, as we have elaborately narrated above that the first respondent cannot be blamed for the belated issuance of Community Certificate. As we have already stated, the request of the first respondent for issuance of Community Certificate was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer for more than a decade. It is only in these special and peculiar circumstances, we are inclined to sustain the Order of the learned Single Judge. 21. In view of all the above, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.