Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the first respondent Teachers Recruitment Board (in short 'TRB') to appoint him in the post of B.T. Assistant in Tamil in Direct Recruitment in respect of selections made for Backlog vacancies for the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and in respect of vacancies in Minority Languages and other subjects by calling the candidates under the State Level Employment Seniority. The petitioner was called for Certificate Verification on 23.06.2012 by the TRB by the communication dated 13.06.2012. The petitioner also appeared for the interview. However, he was not considered for appointment as he has not produced the Original S.S.L.C book and he was intimated by a communication about his non-selection. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, had not questioned the non-selection and on the other hand, it is his case that he had the duplicate S.S.L.C certificate issued by the Department of Education and the original S.S.L.C book was lost and he had applied for duplicate S.S.L.C Book and as and when the duplicate is issued, he will produce the same and till such time, the respondents may be directed to consider his mark sheet for the purpose of appointing him to the post in question. The loss of the S.S.L.C book by the petitioner is neither wilful nor wanton and only after rejection of his appointment, he came to know the legal position regarding duplicate mark sheet and thereafter, he had applied for the mark sheet. 3. It is not clear as to how such a writ petition is maintainable. Pursuant to the State Level Seniority in the employment exchange the petitioner was considered under Backlog vacancy, but he was not able to produce the original S.S.L.C book which is a pre-requisite for accepting his qualification. In the notice calling him for Certificate Verification, in the note appended in para 4, it is stated that when they appear before the Verification Committee, they will have to produce the originals and original documents alone will be accepted and no document issued subsequent to the interview will not be accepted. 4. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2403 [Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan and Others]. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court held as follows:- [=(2011) 12 SCC 85 in para 29] "28. 4. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2403 [Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan and Others]. In paragraph 28, the Supreme Court held as follows:- [=(2011) 12 SCC 85 in para 29] "28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules.." 5. In the light of the above, the present case is unable to be countenanced. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.