Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 887 (MAD)

V. Vinoth v. Director General of Police Chennai

2013-02-12

K.CHANDRU

body2013
Order: 1. These two writ petitions are filed by one and the same person. In the first writ petition namely WP No. 29829 of 2012, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to award special marks to him in terms of clause No.27 (F) of the notification dated 21.03.2012 issued by the Board for having submitted 'C' certificate in NCC and for a consequential direction to the respondents to provisionally select him to the post of Jail Warder/Fireman or to the post of TSP in terms of the said notification dated 21.03.2012. 2. When the writ petition No. 29829 of 2012 came up for admission on 19.10.2012, this Court, while ordering notice to the respondents, held that any appointment made will be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. 3. During the pendency of WP No. 29829 of 2012, the second respondent therein namely The Chairman of Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service has informed the petitioner by his communication dated 26.11.2012 that he had obtained 57 marks in the written test; 9 marks in the physical efficiency test and thus the total marks secured by him was 66. It was also informed by the second respondent that on verification of his certificates, it was found that he did not submit the 'C' Certificate in NCC and therefore, he is not eligible for any special marks for production of the said certificate. It was further informed that since the petitioner had secured lesser marks than the cut off marks prescribed for scheduled caste candidates, being 67 marks, he could not be selected and appointed to the post to which the Board called for applications. Challenging the said order dated 26.11.2012, the second writ petition, being WP No. 33527 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard Mrs. Anitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned Special Government Pleader produced the original files relating to the petitioner. 5. Challenging the said order dated 26.11.2012, the second writ petition, being WP No. 33527 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard Mrs. Anitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned Special Government Pleader produced the original files relating to the petitioner. 5. In this writ petition, the question arose for consideration is whether the petitioner, at the time of sending his application, has enclosed the 'C' Certificate in NCC for consideration by the respondents to award him special marks for having enclosed the same; whether the petitioner produced the said certificate to the respondents at the time of certificate verification and whether the respondents are justified in refusing to award special marks to the petitioner allegedly on the ground that the petitioner did not enclose such certificate along with the application. 6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had sent the application for recruitment in a OMR coding sheet. In column No.28, in respect of Serial No.9, relating to 'C' Certificate in NCC, the petitioner has shaded the column in blank ink indicating that he had enclosed the photocopy of the said certificate along with the application. This was also reiterated by the petitioner in para No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, there is no specific denial of this assertion made by the petitioner in para-3 of the affidavit. On the contrary, in para-4 of the counter, it was stated thus:- "4. It is submitted that the petitioner herein was a candidate for the Combined Recruitment of Gr.II Police Constables (M&W), Gr.II Jail Warders (M) and Firemen for the year 2012. He sent his application along with the required certificates. Since the applicant was found eligible, his application was admitted with Code No.0400596 and he was called for the selection process...." 8. Mrs. Anitha, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the instructions given to the candidates wherein in paragraph 17.8, it was indicated that if any application is not signed or the photograph was not affixed or proper certificate not enclosed or the address was not properly written, it will be rejected even at the threshold without any notice. Mrs. Anitha, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the instructions given to the candidates wherein in paragraph 17.8, it was indicated that if any application is not signed or the photograph was not affixed or proper certificate not enclosed or the address was not properly written, it will be rejected even at the threshold without any notice. While so, if really the petitioner would not have enclosed the certificate, as alleged, his application would have been rejected summarily. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had enclosed the certificate along with the application. Further, the petitioner also produced photocopy of the said certificate to the respondents at the time of certificate verification and therefore, the respondents are not justified in denying the award of special marks to the petitioner. 9. A cumulative reading of the instructions given to the candidates would clearly shows that the petitioner, at the time of sending the application had enclosed the photocopy of the 'C' Certificate in NCC. The petitioner also claims to have submitted a photocopy of the said certificate to the respondents when he was called for certificate verification on 22.08.2012 at Armed Reserve Parade Ground, Kakuppam, Villupuram District. In para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that the second respondent, after verifying al the original certificates, has returned it to him on 21.08.2012. It is with reference to this, the parties are in controversy. 10. The stand of the respondents, as found in para No.8 of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner did not produce the photocopy of 'C' Certificate in NCC along with the application and he did not also produce the same at the time of certificate verification. Reliance was placed on page No.8 of the brochure wherein it is stated that when the relevant certificates are not enclosed, the application is liable to be rejected. 11. From the perusal of the original records made available to this Court, in the original OMR sheet maintained by the respondents for certificate verification, it is seen that it was signed by a Junior Assistant, Superintendent and Verifying officer namely the Personal Assistant to the Officer. As against the column relating to production of NCC Certificate, initially, shadowing was done in the option 'Yes' and thereafter, it was scored out and the option 'No' was shaded. As against the column relating to production of NCC Certificate, initially, shadowing was done in the option 'Yes' and thereafter, it was scored out and the option 'No' was shaded. As against the same, initial of a person is made available, but that initial did not tally with the three persons, who verified the certificate of the candidates thereby the conduct of the respondents draw suspicion. The columns provide only for 'Yes' or 'No' and in the present case, both the columns were shadowed and as against the option 'Yes' it was scored out with an initial. Such a procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be countenanced. Further, para-5 of the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the writ petition remains uncontroverted. It is also seen from the files that the petitioner went through the selection process and successfully completed it. The petitioner belonged to Schedule Caste community and his parents are coolie workers. So far as the allegation that the petitioner has secured 66 marks in the written test and physical efficiency test is concerned, there is no dispute. Only controversy relate to award of special mark for having enclosed the 'C' Certificate in NCC. If it is found that the petitioner had in fact produced the said certificate along with the application or subsequently produced it before the respondents at the time of certificate verification, he is entitled to award of two more marks in which case, the total marks secured by the petitioner will go up to 68 marks. 12. In the counter affidavit in para No.7, the cut off marks for various categories are stated as follows:- "7. It is further submitted that the cut off mark and DOB for the post preference 1. Armed Reserve 2. TSP 3. Jail Warder and 4. Firemen are as follows:- Since the petitioner did not secure required cut off marks for any of the posts, he was not selected for the post of Gr.II Police Constable (M&M), Gr.II Jail Warder (M) and Firemen for the year 2012." 13. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had in fact produced the 'C' Certificate in NCC at the time of submitting the application and he was unjustly denied special mark for the same. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had in fact produced the 'C' Certificate in NCC at the time of submitting the application and he was unjustly denied special mark for the same. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for award of two more marks for having produced the 'C' Certificate in NCC possessed by him in which event, the total mark secured by him will go up to 68. In such event, the petitioner is entitled to any one of the posts aspired for. It is to be mentioned that the cut off mark for TSP, Jail Warder or Fireman is 67 and now the petitioner had admittedly secured 68 marks, he is entitled to be selected for any one of the three posts based upon his other credentials. 14. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed to the extend indicated above. The respondents are directed to select and appoint the petitioner to any one of the three posts mentioned above. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall produce the original 'C' Certificate in NCC to the respondents without standing in the formalities. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.