Judgment :- 1. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, for which advertisement was given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) vide., Advertisement No.280. Subsequently, the petitioner got an Hall Ticket for writing examination and she wrote examination and rank list was also published. The petitioner had obtained rank 4847 and as against her Registration No.14701268, her community was described as 'Others– Female'. Subsequently, the communal cadre and cut-off mark were also published. According to the petitioner, for the Backward Class women the cut-off mar is 198. 2. The case of the petitioner was that she was initially belonged to Hindu religion and born in Sengunthar Community, which is a Backward Class as per the the list of Backward Classes published by the State Government. She got married to one Mohamed Asath on 21.05.2006 by converting herself into Muslim. Since she got converted into Muslim and married a Muslim man, she applied for community certificate, which was also given by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kancheepuram stating that she belongs to Backward Class Muslim Labbai community. She also published in the Government Gezette, dated 26.10.2009, about her name change from A.Premavathy to A.Fathima on 18.05.2006. It is armed with this document, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as Backward Class Muslim and include her name in the selection list published by the TNPSC and also appoint her in the common decree post. 3. When this matter came up on 02.11.2012, this Court directed notice to be served on the learned Standing Counsel for TNPSC as well as on the Government Pleader. On notice, Mr.N.S.Nanthakumar, learned Standing Counsel for TNPSC is appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that because of her conversion into Muslim Religion and marriage to Muslim person as per Muslim rites, she can claim her community as Muslim Labbai community is concerned, the question is no longer resintegra. Though the petitioner produced a community certificate obtained from the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kancheepuram, as noted above, such a community certificate is not valid because the petitioner did not belong to Muslim Labbai Community, it is only her husband who belongs to the said community. 5. Though the petitioner produced a community certificate obtained from the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kancheepuram, as noted above, such a community certificate is not valid because the petitioner did not belong to Muslim Labbai Community, it is only her husband who belongs to the said community. 5. In the list of Backward Classes published along with the prospectus of TNPSC issued to the candidates, insofar as the list of Backward Class Muslim is concerned, the same is covered by G.O.Ms.No.85, Backward Class, Most Backward Class, Minority Welfare Department, dated 29.07.2008 and it reads as follows:- "List of Backward Classes (Muslims) -G.O.Ms.No.85 BC, MBC and Minorities Welfare (BCC) Department, dated 29.07.2008. 1. Ansar 2. Dekkani Muslims 3. Dudekula 4. Labbais including Rowthar and Marakayar (whether their spoken language is Tamil or Urdu) 5. Mapilla 6. Sheik 7. Syed. 6. The petitioner, admittedly, was a Hindu before her marriage and born in Hindu Sengunthar Community. Therefore, she cannot transfer her community only because of her marriage. The issue as to whether by marriage, either inter-caste or inter-religion, the wife can become a member of the caste of her husband, came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University [ (1996) 3 SCC 545 ). In the said judgment in paragraphs 31 & 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "31. It is well-settled law from Bhoobum Moyee Debia Vs. Ram Kishore Acharj Chowdhry [(1865) 10 MIA 279] that judiciary recognised a century and a half ago that a husband and wife are one under Hindu law, and so long as the wife survives, she is half of the husband. She is 'Sapinda' of her husband as held in Lulloobhoy Bappoobhoy cassidass Moolchund Vs. Cassibai [(1879-80 7 IA 212]. It would, therefore, be clear that be it either under the Cannon law or the Hindu law, on marriage the wife becomes an integral part of husband's marital home entitled to equal status of husband as a member of the family. Therefore, the lady, on marriage, becomes a member of the family and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she moved. The caste rigidity breaks down and would stand no impediment to her becoming a member of the family to which the husband belongs and she gets herself transplanted. ..... 34. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar Vs. Therefore, the lady, on marriage, becomes a member of the family and thereby she becomes a member of the caste to which she moved. The caste rigidity breaks down and would stand no impediment to her becoming a member of the family to which the husband belongs and she gets herself transplanted. ..... 34. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar Vs. Vishwanath Pandu Barde [1995 Supp (2) SCC 549] and R.Chandevarappa Vs. State of Karnataka [ (1995) 6 SCC 309 ] this Court had held that economic empowerment is a fundamental right to the poor and the State is enjoined under Articles 15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities. Thus, education, employment and economic empowerment are some of the programmes the State has evolved and also provide reservation in admission into educational institutions, or in case of other economic benefits under Articles 15(4) and 46, or in appointment to an office or a post under the State under Article 16(4). Therefore, when a member is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs, he/she must of necessity also have had undergone the same handicaps, and must have been subjected to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in Forward Caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) or 16(4), as the case may be. Acquisition of the status of Scheduled Caste etc, by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution." Therefore, the present prayer, namely, that she has produced Backward Class Muslim Certificate and should be considered as Backward Class Muslim, cannot stand to reason as her claim is based upon only by marriage and not by birth. The Community Certificate issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kancheepuram, describing the petitioner as Muslim Labbai Community so as to bring her within the Backward Class Muslim, cannot be also accepted as the petitioner does not belong to the said community and it is only her husband who belongs to the said community. 7. The Community Certificate issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kancheepuram, describing the petitioner as Muslim Labbai Community so as to bring her within the Backward Class Muslim, cannot be also accepted as the petitioner does not belong to the said community and it is only her husband who belongs to the said community. 7. As to whether any converted Backward Class Muslim will automatically become Backward Class Muslim is also a issue that can be considered in the present case. 8. For the purpose of communal reservation in the terms of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, a community has to be identified as a Backward Class, which is not adequately represented by the State under the service of the State. Therefore, it requires an exercise to be undergone by the State whether the Converted Backward Class Muslim automatically becomes Backward Class Muslim whether by marriage or any other reason. In the present case, the list of Backward Class Muslim shows that there are several other Muslim communities left out. 9. Therefore, in the absence of exercise by the State Government by including a particular caste or religion group into the list of Backward Class, which requires undergoing of an exercise by the State Government, the converted backward class muslim will not be included as a Backward Class. A caste can be relevant factor for identifying the Class, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India and others) reported in 2000(1) SCC 168 . 10. Even from the list of Backward Class prescribed by TNPSC, it can be seen that in respect of the Scheduled Castes, who converted into Christianity from Schedule Caste, were notified as Backward Class community under Serial No.131. In the absence of such converted Muslims automatically being including in the Backward Class list, the petitioner's prayer that she should be declared as Backward Class Muslim and consequently, be selected for the post, cannot be accepted by this Court and such claim has to be rejected out right. 11. However, Mr.Devaraj learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before her conversion into Muslim Labbai community, she belonged to Hindu Sengunthar Community. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the Transfer Certificate issued by the School, in which the petitioner studied, describing her community as Backward Class Sengunthar Community. 12. 11. However, Mr.Devaraj learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before her conversion into Muslim Labbai community, she belonged to Hindu Sengunthar Community. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the Transfer Certificate issued by the School, in which the petitioner studied, describing her community as Backward Class Sengunthar Community. 12. First of all, the petitioner never made any such claim before the TNPSC and no such certificate has been produced before the TNPSC. The Transfer Certificate cannot be accepted as a valid certificate for the proof of showing herself as Backward Class and the certificate ought to have been produced before the authorities along with the application form. After a long time, after the selection process is over, the petitioner cannot attempt to state that she should be considered as Sengunthar Community belonging to Back Class. In fact, whether she could continue her Bacakward Class community status after her conversion into Islam itself is a doubtful position. Even otherwise, in the absence of any such proof being produced before TNPSC, TNPSC is not obliged to consider the same based on the assumption made by the petitioner. If pursuant to the advertisement imposing certain condition and the petitioner did not comply with the conditions, then in the absence of any power to the selection authority to condone such lapse, the Court cannot go into the same and any such direction that she should be considered as belonging to Backward Class can not be given. 13. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 held that if pursuant to an advertisement, conditions stipulated are not complied with and even in the absence of any power to the selecting authority, no such application can be entertained. It is necessary to refer to the following passages found in Paragaphs 29, 30 and 32 of the said Judgment, which reads as follows:- "29. 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 wards, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any conducted candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. In other wards, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any conducted 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. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could be still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list." 14. In the light of the above discussion, no case is made out in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.