Judgment 1. The petitioner is a law graduate and enrolled himself as a lawyer with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 14.12.2001. He was practising as a lawyer, till June 2008. The father of the petitioner was a Government servant, in the Meenakshi Government Arts College for Women, Madurai, who died in harness paving it way for compassionate appointment to the petitioner, being the son of the deceased. While so, the second respondent had called for the posts of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II through open recruitment. In response to the post of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (in short 'TNPSC') the petitioner had applied for the said post. Subsequently, he came off with flying colours in the examination conducted by the TNPSC, however, he was uncalled for an interview citing 5(B) of the notification of the TNPSC issued on 12.02.2011, which goes thus:- “Candidates should possess the following or its equivalent qualification on the date of this notification viz.,12.02.2011 (i) B.L. Degree of any University or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grants” and (ii) Must be a member of the bar and must have had active practice in Criminal Courts for a period of not less than five years.” It is pertinent to note that in the very same notification, Clause 11 in paragraph 15(g), it is read as follows:- “15 (g) No Objection Certificate Persons who are in the service of the Indian Union or a State in India or in the employment of local bodies or universities or quasi Government organization constituted under the authority of the Government of India or of State in India whether in regular service or temporary service need not send their application through their Head of Department or employer. Instead they may directly apply to this Commission duly informing their employer in writing that they are applying for the particular recruitment and with the condition that they should produce 'No Objection Certificate' in the form prescribed below from an authority not below their next superior officer. (i) at the time of oral text in respect of posts for which the selection comprises a written cum oral test. (ii) at the time of sending the original certificates for verification in respective post for which the selection comprises only a written examination.” 3. (i) at the time of oral text in respect of posts for which the selection comprises a written cum oral test. (ii) at the time of sending the original certificates for verification in respective post for which the selection comprises only a written examination.” 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that inspite of the fact that the petitioner has more than five years experience in the relevant field and he falls under Clause 15(g)(1) of the notification issued by the TNPSC, the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. He also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449 , Dr. M. Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and S. Kasiramalingam Vs. The Chief Secretary, dated 28.09.2012. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not eligible to the post to which applied for, as per 5(B) of the notification issued by the TNPSC. In the counter affidavit also, they reiterate the very same stand. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that on two grounds the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post Additional Public Prosecutor was rejected. Those grounds are that he was in employment and he was not a member of the Bar on the date of Commission's notification as prescribed in para 5(B) of the said notification, at the time of applying for the post in question. First of all, in the notification itself there is provision to the effect that as per 15(g) of the said notification, the candidate should produce 'No Objection Certificate' at the time of oral test in respect of the posts for which the selection is made. More so, at the time of applying for the post in question, the petitioner has stated in his application form that he was employed at the Meenakshi Government Arts College for Women, Madurai. Therefore, the first ground, on which the rejection is made by the respondents, falls down. As far as the second ground is concerned, the respondents cannot give a reason contrary to the instructions already issued to the candidates, at the time of issuance of the notification. It is a case where the candidate was allowed to sit and write the examination and he was selected too. As far as the second ground is concerned, the respondents cannot give a reason contrary to the instructions already issued to the candidates, at the time of issuance of the notification. It is a case where the candidate was allowed to sit and write the examination and he was selected too. At this point of time, the respondents cannot impose any new conditions that he is not a member of the Bar on the date of Commission's notification. Therefore, the second ground urged by the respondents also falls down. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 26.06.2012 stands set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to issue a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to sit for an interview, if he is otherwise eligible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.