Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come before this Court issuance of writ of mandamus to consider her case for appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in the present recruitment conducted pursuant to notification dated 18.09.2009 under the MBC-ICM (women) priority category. 2. After completion of her Higher Secondary course during 1993, the petitioner was married to a person belonging to Adi Dravider Community on 12.04.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner completed her Diploma in Education course from the Karnataka Secondary Education Board, Bangalore during 2007 and was issued a certificate on 01.03.2008. After obtaining such qualification, the petitioner registered her name with the District Employment Office, Krishnagiri on 26.05.2008. Subsequently, on 25.07.2008, the petitioner was issued a certificate by the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri that she has entered an inter-caste Marriage and entitled for such priority, this certificate was also produced before District Employment office, Krishnagiri and the same as been registered in her Employment card on 16.10.2008 under ICM category. Thereafter, the petitioner’s certificates were forwarded to the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training (DTERT) for evaluation, since she had secured her diploma in Education from Karnataka Secondary Education Board. 3. In the mean time, pursuant to her application for selection to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, as per the notification dated 18.09.2009, the petitioner was called upon to appear for certificate verification on 02.06.2009. According to the petitioner, she appeared before the Board for certificate verification and submitted that she had forwarded her educational certificate to the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training for evaluation and therefore, requested time for production of such certificates. On 11.06.2009, the certificates were evaluated by the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training and such proceedings was given to the petitioner on 13.06.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation on 15.06.2009, requesting that she may be considered under the ICM priority category. Subsequently, the petitioner has made other representation on 30.06.2009 to the first respondent. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was called upon to appear for certificate verification, by proceedings dated 18.09.2009 and was directed to appear before the concerned officer on 07.10.2009 in the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Gandhi Road, Krishnagiri. The petitioner promptly appeared before the concerned officer and produced the certificates to prove her educational qualification as well as she is the candidate entitled for priority under ICM category. The petitioner promptly appeared before the concerned officer and produced the certificates to prove her educational qualification as well as she is the candidate entitled for priority under ICM category. In spite of the same, the petitioner was not selected, hence, she approached this court by way of present writ petition. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that more than 20 candidates similarly placed like that of the petitioner, who had undergone their Diploma course in Karnataka state, forwarded the certificates for evaluation to the DTERT and all those candidates were granted time for production of such certificate. Therefore, her inability to produce the relevant certificates on the first date of verification, i.e., on 02.06.2009 cannot be found fault. Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled to priority under the ICM category. The petitioner was issued a certificate to the said effect by the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri on 25.07.2008 and this has also been registered with the Employment Exchange on 16.10.2008. That apart, the learned counsel would submit that the District Employment Office, by proceedings dated 29.05.2009 informed the Teacher Recruitment Board that the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community and she is ICM priority candidate. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled for selection. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the respondents, based on written instructions given by the Chairman of the Teacher Recruitment Board would submit that on the first date of certificate verification on 02.06.2009, the petitioner could not produce the original certificates and after the completion of the verification, the list of provisionally selected candidates were published on 12.06.2009. It is further stated that before receipt of letter from the Employment Exchange, the Board has completed entire selection process and that such priority candidates under ICM category have already been effected in the roster and were selected. It is further stated that since the petitioner was sponsored under Most Backward Class (Women Non Priority Category) she was not considered for selection. 6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record. 7. It is not dispute that the petitioner had registered her name in the Employment Exchange on 26.05.2008. It is further stated that since the petitioner was sponsored under Most Backward Class (Women Non Priority Category) she was not considered for selection. 6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record. 7. It is not dispute that the petitioner had registered her name in the Employment Exchange on 26.05.2008. Thereafter, the competent authority to issue certificate for getting priority under ICM category, issued such certificate on 25.07.2008 and the same also been registered with the District Employment office on 16.10.2008. The necessary endorsement in the Employment card, filed in the typed set of papers, establishes this fact. Further, the Employment Exchange themselves by proceedings dated 29.05.2009 has stated that the petitioner falls in ICM priority category. If that be the case, only the issue to be considered is whether the Teacher Recruitment Board were justified in not considering the petitioner under priority category. The answer of such question being that the Teacher Recruitment Board were not aware of the such priority category and the District Employment Office have not forwarded the same. Further it is contention of the Teacher Recruitment Board that on the date of first certificate verification on 02.06.2009, the petitioner did not produce any relevant certificate. 8. In my view the stand taken by the recruitment agency cannot be countenanced. Since, in the matter of public employment, if the petitioner is entitled for a priority and if such entitlement is not disputed, rules of technicalities could not stand in the way of granting relief to such candidate. In the instant case on 02.06.2009, the petitioner was unable to produce her certificates for verification, since they were submitted before the DTERT for evaluation of candidates, who were similarly placed like that of the petitioner who had undergone the course in Karnataka could not produce such certificate. Therefore, the Teacher Recruitment Board thought it fit that one more opportunity should be granted and accordingly, the petitioner was called for certificate verification on 07.10.2009. On the said date, the petitioner had produced all the certificates, including the certificate relating to priority category. If the employment exchange has not taken proper steps to forward the necessary details, the petitioner cannot be faulted, nor shall be penalised. On the said date, the petitioner had produced all the certificates, including the certificate relating to priority category. If the employment exchange has not taken proper steps to forward the necessary details, the petitioner cannot be faulted, nor shall be penalised. However, in the instant case, the employment exchange also has given a communication on 29.05.2009 stating that the petitioner belongs to MBC-ICM priority, If that be the case, the Teacher Recruitment Board much afford opportunity to the petitioner to produce the certificate for verification on 18.09.2009 could have very well taken into consideration the said fact, however, this has not been done, the petitioner has bee unjustly denied her selection. This court, while ordered notice of motion to the respondents directed one post of Secondary Grade Teacher to be kept vacant. There fore, when such a post kept vacant. I find no reason as to why the petitioner should not be accommodated in such vacancy. 9. Especially, it is not in dispute that she belong to priority category. As already observed, the denial the consider the case in the priority category is nor attributable to the petitioner. Hence, for all the above reasons I am convinced that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider and select the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the Selection conducted pursuant to the notification dated 18.09.2009 under MBC-ICM (women) priority category and pass necessary orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.