JUDGMENT :- M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 3.9.2010, made in W.P.No.11974 of 2009. The first and the second respondents in the writ petition, in W.P.No.11974 of 2009, have filed the present writ appeal. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition, namely Dr. G.Pandi Mageshwari, the first respondent in the present writ appeal, had filed the writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the first respondent in the writ petition, namely, The Secretary, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, dated 7.5.2009, and to quash the same, and to direct him to appoint the petitioner in the writ petition to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) in the Tamilnadu Medical Service, 2007, for which oral test had been held, on 27.4.2009, by way of direct recruitment. 3. In the writ petition, in W.P.No.11974 of 2009, the petitioner therein namely, Dr.G.Pandi Mageshwari, who is the first respondent in the present writ appeal had stated that she belongs to a Most Backward Class. She had completed her B.D.S course during the academic year 2002-2003 and had registered herself under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948. While so, the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission had issued a notification inviting applications to fill up 56 vacancies in the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental). The selection process, as per Clause 9 of the advertisement, consisted of two stages, with a written examination and an oral test. The final selection was to be based on the marks obtained by the candidate concerned, in both the written examination and the oral test. 4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental). She had appeared for the written examination held on 16.11.2008. Thereafter, she had been called for the oral interview by way of a communication, dated 13.4.2009. The petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the oral test, on 27.4.2009, along with all her original documents. After the selection process was over, the Controller of Examination, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, the second respondent in the writ petition, had published the details of the marks obtained by the candidates. The petitioner had obtained 246 marks out of 340 marks as against 102 marks, which is the minimum qualifying marks for the most backward classes. After the selection process was over, the Controller of Examination, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, the second respondent in the writ petition, had published the details of the marks obtained by the candidates. The petitioner had obtained 246 marks out of 340 marks as against 102 marks, which is the minimum qualifying marks for the most backward classes. Thereafter, the first respondent in the writ petition had furnished the provisional list of candidates, vide his proceedings, dated 7.5.2009. However, the name of the petitioner was not found in the provisional selection list. Later, she was informed that her name was included in the reserve list in the category of MBC-Denotified community (general)–2, and the MBC-Denotified community (women) – 1. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 7.5.2009, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.11974 of 2009. 5. The petitioner in the writ petition, the first respondent in the present writ appeal had questioned the validity and the correctness of the impugned correction list in so far as it relates to six candidates whose selection has been withheld pending receipt of certain documents which were required for verification. The petitioner had pointed out that the call letter for the oral interview had required the candidates to produce the original documents listed therein. Clause 15 of the instructions issued to the candidates, appended to the call letter, had made it clear that the candidate shall produce the original documents at the time of the oral test and that the candidates who fail to produce the same would not be admitted to the oral test. However, the provisional selection list had shown that the six candidates, provisionally, selected did not comply with the said instructions. They had not produced the original documents, as per the instructions issued to them, at the time of the oral test. 6. It had been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that she would have been selected for being appointed to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental), if the candidates concerned provisionally selected for being appointed to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental), had been disqualified due to their failure to submit the original documents which were necessary, at the time of the oral interview. As such, the provisional selection and appointment of the candidates concerned is arbitrary, illegal and void. 7. As such, the provisional selection and appointment of the candidates concerned is arbitrary, illegal and void. 7. Per contra, it had been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the writ petition that the instructions issued to the candidates in the call letter, for the production of the original certificates at the time of the oral test are directory in nature and therefore, they were not mandatory in nature. The instructions issued along with the call letter had no force of law. As per Clause 15 of the instructions the candidates are required to produce the original certificates of essential documents either at the time of oral test or when they were called for. Further, the rules of procedure governing the TNPSC permits the said commission to regulate its proceedings in such a manner, as it thinks fit in respect of any matter relating to which no provisions had been made in the rules. Thus, it could be seen, by a combined reading of Rule 28 and Clause 15 of the instructions that the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission was vested with certain discretionary powers to grant exemption to the candidates relating to the compliance of the instructions contained in the call letter for genuine reasons. 8. Accepting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition the learned single Judge had passed an order, dated 3.9.2010, setting aside the proceedings of the first respondent in the writ petition, dated 7.5.2009, relating to the provisional selection of three candidates, namely, R.Usha, C.Karthika Jothi and Gokul and had directed the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) on merits and on communal reservation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the present appeal is that the instructions issued to the candidates along with the call letter were directory in nature and therefore, they were not mandatory in nature. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the present appeal is that the instructions issued to the candidates along with the call letter were directory in nature and therefore, they were not mandatory in nature. The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission has invoked its discretionary power to permit candidates who had been provisionally selected to submit the necessary original documents at a later stage, as they could not be submitted by the candidates at the time of the oral interview. Therefore for good and sufficient reasons the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission had exempted the submissions of the original documents by the provisionally selected candidates at the time of the oral test. 10. It had been further submitted that, in any case, the first respondent in the present writ appeal would not be entitled to be appointed as Assistant Surgeon (Dental), as she did not come within the zone of consideration. In the meanwhile, one of the selected candidates namely Karthika Jothi had not joined in the post. Therefore, one Uma Maheswari a Most Backward Class candidate, who was No.1 in the waiting list had joined in the said post. In such circumstances, the issue arising for the consideration of this Court in the present writ appeal is merely academic in nature. In any case, the petitioner in the writ petition, who is the first appellants in the present writ appeal would not be entitled to be selected for the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental), as she was not within the zone of consideration. As such, the present writ appeal is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 11. In view of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and on a perusal of the documents available we are of the considered view that the first respondent in the present writ appeal has not shown sufficient cause or reason to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. 11. In view of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and on a perusal of the documents available we are of the considered view that the first respondent in the present writ appeal has not shown sufficient cause or reason to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It is clear that the first respondent does not come within the zone of consideration and therefore, she cannot be said to be an aggrieved party.The other person, namely, Uma Maheswari, who belongs to the Most backward class community, who was first in the waiting list had been appointed in the vacancy that had arisen in the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) when Karthika Jyothi who had been selected had failed to join the post. Further, the first respondent had not been in a position to substantiate her claim that the instructions issued to the candidates in the call letters sent to them were mandatory in nature. 12. It is also noted that the learned single Judge had set aside the selection of 3 persons, namely, R.Usha, C.Karthika Jothi and Gokul, without giving an opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge, dated 3.9.2009, is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. 13. It is also noted that the candidates who had been selected to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) had continued in their posts in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the writ appeal in W.A.No.313 of 2011. Even if certain procedural infirmities had taken place there is nothing to show that they would have the effect of setting aside the list of candidates selected for being appointed to the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental). Further, the claims made by the first respondent in the present writ appeal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, this court finds it fit to set aside the order of the learned single Judge, dated 3.9.2010, Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs.