Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the selection of the respondents 3 to 5 and consequent non-selection of the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 for appointment in the post of Graduate Assistant Teacher (Tamil) as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and hence null and void and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to select and appoint the petitioner in the post of Graduate Assistant Teacher (Tamil) under the control of the second respondent. 2. Petitioner graduated in Tamil Literature (i.e.) B.Lit. in May, 2001 and has registered her name in District Employment Exchange in August, 2003. On 28.6.2007 petitioner got married to one Mr.M.Mageshkumar of Vanapuram Village, Sengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. According to the petitioner, the marriage is an inter-caste marriage. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (Hindu Valluvan) Community and her husband is a Backward Class (Thuluva Vellalar) Community. On 13.6.2008, the Tahsildar of Omalur Taluk, Salem District issued a certificate in X/K/6065/08/B5 in favour of Valarmathi, the petitioner stating that Valarmathi, daughter of Mr.Rajendran has married one Mageshkumar, son of Mr.Manoharan, belonging to Vanapuram village, Sengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District by way of inter-caste marriage. Based on the inter-caste marriage certificate, the petitioner approached the Employment Exchange for recommendation to employment under the inter-caste marriage category. This was recorded in the register of the Employment Exchange on 28.7.2008. 3. In September, 2009, petitioner received a call letter from the first respondent for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant. Petitioner participated in the selection. Petitioner states that she is entitled to the benefit of selection based on the inter-caste marriage certificate under the priority quota. In April, 2010, petitioner was called for certificate verification for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant Teacher (Tamil). By a memorandum dated 30.4.2010, petitioner was directed to appear on 12.5.2010 at Sri Ramakrishna Saradha Higher Secondary School, Sooramangalam, Salem for certificate verification. After verification of the certificates of all eligible candidates, the result was published by the first respondent on 15.7.2010 on internet, in which petitioners name did not find place. Petitioner, thereafter, came to understand from the statement shown in the remarks column that her claim for selection was not considered stating that the priority certificate is not in the proper format. The petitioner, therefore, approached the first respondent on 16.7.2010 and enquired. Petitioner, thereafter, came to understand from the statement shown in the remarks column that her claim for selection was not considered stating that the priority certificate is not in the proper format. The petitioner, therefore, approached the first respondent on 16.7.2010 and enquired. It is the case of the petitioner that the Joint Director in consultation with the higher authority informed the petitioner that the inter-caste marriage certificate did not contain the name of the petitioners community and the community of her husband and therefore, her claim for appointment was not considered. Challenging the non-selection of the petitioner and aggrieved by the selection of other candidates, the writ petition has been filed. 4. The contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:- (i) The inter-caste marriage certificate issued by the Tahsildar has to be accepted as a valid certificate as it is issued by the competent authority. (ii) There is no prescribed format to show as to how the inter-caste marriage certificate has to be issued. (iii) Petitioner should have been called upon to clarify if there is any doubt in the inter-caste marriage certificate issued by the competent authority. (iv) If not, the respondents 1 and 2 should have clarified with the authority, who issued the certificate, if there is any doubt about the genuineness of the inter-caste marriage certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority and accepted by the employment exchange. (v) If there is no format prescribed and so long as the certificate issued is by the competent authority, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot deny employment under priority category stating irrelevant reasons. 5. Mrs.Dhakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 contends as follows:- (i) Though no format is prescribed, the inter-caste marriage certificate produced by the petitioner does not specify the community of the petitioner and that of her husband and therefore, the authority was justified in declining the benefit. (ii) On record, the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued to the petitioner is available, but the certificate of the husband is not available. (iii) There is no marriage certificate to substantiate the inter-caste marriage. She therefore, prayed that the Writ Petition should be dismissed, if not petitioner should be directed to produce the correct certificate. 6. (ii) On record, the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate issued to the petitioner is available, but the certificate of the husband is not available. (iii) There is no marriage certificate to substantiate the inter-caste marriage. She therefore, prayed that the Writ Petition should be dismissed, if not petitioner should be directed to produce the correct certificate. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is inclined to accept the petitioners contentions for the following reasons:- (i) It is not in dispute that the inter-caste marriage certificate issued by the Tahsildar is the certificate which is required for grant of the benefit under the priority category. (ii) If the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, clearly states that the marriage between the petitioner and her husband is an inter-caste marriage, the petitioner has qualified herself to claim the benefits. So long as the certificate is valid, it has to be accepted as such. (iii) Petitioner admittedly, belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. It is irrelevant as to what community the petitioners husband belongs, as the claim is made by the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. The inter-caste marriage certificate issued by the Tahsildar justifies the claim of the petitioner. (iv) Having produced the inter-caste marriage certificate issued by the Tahsildar, if the authority has any doubt, they could have called upon the petitioner to clarify any doubt, if there is one. (v) It has not been shown that there is a prescribed format for issuing inter-caste marriage certificate. (vi) Further, no rule has been shown to state that unless there is a registered marriage certificate, the petitioner cannot seek admission on the priority category based on inter-caste marriage certificate. Registration is another issue. Production of the marriage certificate was never insisted upon. (vii) Petitioner can always register the marriage and produce the certificate if she has been called upon to do so. (viii) Once the petitioner has established that she has a valid inter-caste marriage certificate issued by the competent authority, she is entitled to priority selection in the matter of appointment. The authority cannot deny the benefits on technicalities, more so as the petitioner is sponsored under the priority category accepting her certificate. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed as follows:- (i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to accept the inter-caste marriage certificate produced by the petitioner for appointment. The authority cannot deny the benefits on technicalities, more so as the petitioner is sponsored under the priority category accepting her certificate. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed as follows:- (i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to accept the inter-caste marriage certificate produced by the petitioner for appointment. (ii) If any clarification is required, the authorities are at liberty to verify with the competent authority who issued the same. (iii) By order of this Court dated 31.8.2010 one seat was directed to be kept vacant in the post of Graduate Assistant Teacher and accordingly, the petitioner will be appointed in the said seat kept vacant within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The relief sought for as against the respondents 3 to 5 is rejected as it is not pressed. (v) There will be no order as to costs. (vi) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.