Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a physically challenged person, as he is visually handicapped. He is a Post Graduate in History. He also passed M.Phil. 2. The second respondent issued a notification dated 10.11.2008 calling for applications to fill the 16 posts included in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I, 2008. 3% reservation for Physically Handicapped person is provided, while filling up of all the posts except Assistant Section Officer (Other than Law and Finance Department) in Secretariat. One of the posts namely, Assistant in Revenue Department, relates to appointments of Assistants in various Districts. The petitioner made an application for 41 posts giving his preferences. The first preference was to the post of Junior Employment Officer (Physically Handicapped) in the Employment and Training Department in the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service. 3. Based on his application, he was called for written examination. He was successful in the written examination. Thereafter the second respondent sent a memorandum dated 04.08.2009 directing the petitioner to appear for oral test on 24.09.2009. He was directed to produce all the original certificates in lieu of which attested copies were sent by him with his application. Accordingly he appeared for the oral test. He produced all the original certificates. 4. While so, the second respondent issued a letter dated 11.01.2010 stating that the petitioner failed to produce proper Physically Handicapped Certificate as mentioned in item (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 calling him to appear for interview. It is further stated that if he fails to produce the certificate within 7 days, his application for selection by direct recruitment to the posts included in Combined Subordinate Service Examination–I, 2008 would be rejected. 5. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 11.01.2010 of the second respondent and for further direction to select him for anyone of the 41 posts for which he applied. 6. The writ petition was admitted on 10.02.2010 and interim direction was granted on the same day to keep one post vacant. The same was also made absolute on 22.03.2010. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 7. Heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.K.Surendranath, learned counsel for the second respondent. 8. The same was also made absolute on 22.03.2010. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 7. Heard Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.K.Surendranath, learned counsel for the second respondent. 8. According to the petitioner, he produced all the certificates in original including the disability certificate dated 02.09.2009 issued by the Disability Board, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli and that certificate is in conformity with clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 of the second respondent, directing the petitioner to appear for interview along with required certificates in original. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the disability certificate produced by the petitioner is not in accordance with clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was selected and his selection is withheld, as he failed to produce Physically Handicapped Certificate in accordance with the instructions laid down. 10. Hence, the issue is whether the petitioner produced the disability certificate in accordance with the instructions contained in clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 of the second respondent. 11. Though the counter affidavit of the second respondent refers to para 4(H) of the notification calling for applications and para 14(f) of the instructions to candidates, the learned counsel for the second respondent confines his arguments that the disability certificate produced by the petitioner is not in accordance with clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 of the second respondent, since the impugned order refers to clause (xi) of the memorandum only. 12. The disability certificate produced by the petitioner which is enclosed at page No.6 of the typed set reads as follows: "Certificate used for Disability candidate by Disability Board Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli – 11. Signature of the candidate: Certified that Mr.S.Santhana Manikandan whose signature is given above. He/she is visually handicapped (Total Blind). The percentage of Disability is 100 % (Hundred) and he is fit for any job in which vision is not required. Identification Marks: 1. A scar on the Right Eyebrow 2. A scar on the Left Eyebrow" The crucial passage in the disability certificate is that he is "fit for any job in which vision is not required". The disability certificate uses the word "any job". Identification Marks: 1. A scar on the Right Eyebrow 2. A scar on the Left Eyebrow" The crucial passage in the disability certificate is that he is "fit for any job in which vision is not required". The disability certificate uses the word "any job". Thus, as per the disability certificate, the petitioner is capable of discharging his duties in any job, which does not require vision. 13. Clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 of the second respondent requires a certificate to the effect that the physical handicap would not render him incapable of efficiently discharging his official duties. Clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 of the second respondent reads as follows: "(xi) In respect of Physically Handicapped candidates, Fresh/Proper Certificate of Physical Handicap obtained from the Medical Board specifying the nature of Physical handicap and the degree of disability and also certifying that his/her Physical handicap would not render him/her incapable of efficiently discharging his/her official duties." In this clause, two negatives viz., "not" and "incapable" are used. On the other hand, the disability certificate uses the word "any job", positively. 14. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent does not give any format for the disability certificate. It is a different matter that if the second respondent prescribed certain format and the petitioner failed to produce the certificate in the prescribed format. But in this case, the second respondent required a disability certificate from the Medical Board certifying that physical handicap would render him incapable of efficiently discharging his official duties. It is not in dispute that the disability certificate was issued by a competent Medical Board. The only issue is the words used by the Medical Board does not fit in with the requirement of clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 of the second respondent. 15.I am of the view that the second respondent is not correct in stating that the disability certificate does not fulfill the requirement of clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009. As stated above, the disability certificate is very categorical that the petitioner can discharge any job which does not require vision. The requirement of clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 is also the same. 16. In the absence of the second respondent prescribing any format, the second respondent is not justified in finding fault with the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board. The requirement of clause (xi) of the memorandum dated 04.08.2009 is also the same. 16. In the absence of the second respondent prescribing any format, the second respondent is not justified in finding fault with the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board. The petitioner applied for 41 posts. It is not known to which post he is selected. Clause 4(H) of the notification calling for applications requires a certificate that has to be produced after selection but before appointment. That certificate is to the effect that the physical handicap will not render him incapable of efficiently discharging the duties attached to the post, to which he has been selected. 17. Clause 4(H) of the notification calling for applications reads as follows: "4.H. Physically Handicapped persons should produce a certificate of physical fitness from the Medical Board to the effect that his/her handicap will not render him/her incapable of efficiently discharging the duties attached to the post to which he / she has been selected, before appointment." 18. Therefore, the petitioner is required to give another certificate after selection, but before appointment. In view of the same, the second respondent is not justified in withholding the result of the petitioner by the impugned order. The impugned order is contrary to the spirit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995, particularly, when the certificate is issued by the competent Medical Board as required by the second respondent. The Medical Board found that the petitioner suffers with 100 % disability due to blindness and that the petitioner is fit to do any job which does not require vision. 19. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.01.2010 of the first respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in any one of the 41 posts included in Combined Subordinate Services Examination – I 2008 Form I (OT) for which he applied, according to his ranking, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.