Judgment : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The writ petitioner, a minor, represented by his father and natural guardian, is the appellant and he made a challenge to the impugned order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the third respondent, rejecting his candidature for admission to VIII Standard in Rashtriya Indian Military College (RIMC), Dehradun, by filing W.P. No. 22120/2013 and the said writ petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on 22.11.2013 and aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The father of the minor, namely G. Ravindra Nath Yadav has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated among other things that the minor G. Ravindra Nath Yadav was born on 09.07.2000 and he made two attempts to join RIMC and was unsuccessful and in respect of the notification for admission to the said institution, which came to be issued during July 2013, the petitioner had applied and the last date for submission of the application was on 30.09.2012. It is further stated that as per the guidelines issued for admission by RIMC, application forms is to be submitted to the respective State Government and for entry into the January term, the candidate should not be less than 11½ years and not more than 13 years as on 1st of January of that year and for entry into the July term, the candidate should not be less than 11½ years and not more than 13 years old as on 1st of July of that year. The guidelines further stipulate that the entrance examination and viva voce is conducted by the respective State Government and Admit Card/Hall Ticket will be issued by the State authority and the last date for submission of application form for the entrance examination in June is 31st March and for the entrance examination in December, it is generally 30th September. 3. The application form was sent by courier to the agency who is conducting the examination on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu, namely Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) on 24.09.2012, which was situated at Omandurar Building, Chennai-2, wherein it was originally located, however the application form sent through courier was returned on 16.10.2012 with an endorsement “Company Shifted”. The application form was sent by courier to the agency who is conducting the examination on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu, namely Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) on 24.09.2012, which was situated at Omandurar Building, Chennai-2, wherein it was originally located, however the application form sent through courier was returned on 16.10.2012 with an endorsement “Company Shifted”. Immediately, the father of the applicant as well as the applicant rushed to Chennai to enquire about the return of the application and came to know that the fifth respondent, namely TNPSC has shifted its office from Omandurar Building, Chennai-2 to Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai-3 and both of them went to the office of the fifth respondent and explained the reasons and the fifth respondent, having convinced with the explanation offered, has forwarded the application to RIMC and also issued him with a Hall Ticket for the examination to be held on 01.12.2012 and 02.12.2012. It is further stated that the writ petitioner, namely G. Ravindra Nath Yadav was the sole candidate in the State of Tamil Nadu, who has passed the written examination and under normal circumstances, he would have been called for viva voce/oral interview on 05.04.2013, but he did not receive the call letter. 4. The writ petitioner has received a communication dated 02.04.2013 stating that the application for admission to RIMC for the academic session commencing July 2013 has been rejected on the ground that the father of the writ petitioner is not a resident of Tamil Nadu and further that the application was received on 30.11.2012 as against the last date for submission of application viz., 30.09.2012. The petitioner and his father once again made enquiries as to the non-receipt of call letter for attending oral interview and came to know that TNPSC and the State Government has taken into consideration the address for correspondence which is at Hyderabad and formed an opinion that the writ petitioner is not a resident of the State of Tamil Nadu, however failed to take into account that the permanent address of the writ petitioner is at Eda Street, Agaram Village & Post, Madhanur (via), Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu and the petitioner’s father has also been issued with Electoral Card and Ration Card, wherein the writ petitioner’s name find place. When the above said fact was brought to the knowledge of the fifth respondent, namely TNPSC, he was permitted to attend viva voce on 03.06.2013, however no communication as to the result of the viva voce was received by the writ petitioner and therefore, a representation dated 15.07.2013 was sent to the second respondent as to the result of the viva voce and since no response was forthcoming, the writ petition was filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the results of viva voce test held on 03.06.2013. 5. After filing of the writ petition, the third respondent sent the impugned communication dated 05.08.2013 to the writ petitioner stating as follows: “Admission to the RIMC (Jul 2013) Master G Ravindernath Yadav 1. Refer your representation dated 23 Jul 13. 2. You may be aware that the viva voce for all India candidates successful in written exam was held on 05 Apr 13. The final merit list of the entrance exam was declassified on 08 May 13 and the environment was informed of the result. 3. Subsequently, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has unilaterally conducted the viva voce exam of Master G Ravindernath Yadav on 03 Jun 13 i.e., almost a month after the declaration of exam results. 4. It is therefore, regretted that your ward master Ravindernath Yadav cannot be considered for admission at this belated stage in clear violation of policy. With your guidance, the boy must continue his preparations & attempt other entries into the Armed Forces at appropriate time.” Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed M.P. No. 1 of 2013 for amending the prayer for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned communication dated 05.08.2013 with a consequential direction to admit the writ petitioner for the academic session commencing from July 2013. 6. The learned Judge, after considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the materials available on record, found that the final merit list of the entrance examination was published on 08.05.2013 and the admission was closed by the end of May 2013 and classes had also commenced and thereafter only, the State Government, through TNPSC, had conducted viva voce on 03.06.2013 and in such a view of the matter, it could not be possible to direct the fourth respondent to admit the minor writ petitioner. Insofar as the request sought for by the writ petitioner to get admitted during the next academic session commencing July 2014, the learned Judge found that for admission to RIMC, the candidate should be between 11½ years and 13 years and the minor writ petitioner, who was born on 09.07.2000 would cross 13 years by January 2014 and since the age factor would also stand against him, the said direction sought for by him cannot be granted and therefore, dismissed the writ petition, vide order dated 22.11.2013 and aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. A.V. Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has vehemently contended that admittedly the application was sent on time to the TNPSC, which has been authorized by the Government of Tamil Nadu to receive, process application, conduct written examination and viva voce and it was sent to the original address of the TNPSC Office at Omandurar Estate, Chennai-2 by courier and the application could not be received for the reason that TNPSC has shifted its office to Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai-3 and it was also brought to the knowledge of the fifth respondent, who, having convinced with the reasons, has permitted him to write the written examination and admittedly, the minor writ petitioner was the sole candidate from the State of Tamil Nadu passed in the written examination and he was expecting a call letter for attending viva voce and it was not received and enquiries were made and it was found that call letter for attending viva voce was not sent by the fifth respondent for the reason that the petitioner is not a resident of the State of Tamil Nadu, overlooking the fact that his permanent address is Eda Street, Agaram Village & Post, Madhanur (via), Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu and it is also supported by documents such as Election Identity Card and Ration Card and when it was brought to the knowledge of the fifth respondent, who got convinced and permitted him to attend the viva voce on 03.06.2013 and once again no communication was received as to the result of viva voce and therefore, the father of the writ petitioner submitted a representation and since it failed to evoke any response, a Writ of Mandamus was filed on 05.08.2013 and thereafter, the third respondent sent the impugned communication and therefore, amendment of prayer was sought and it was also ordered. 8. 8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the minor writ petitioner/appellant is in no way at fault in view of the above cited reasons and the fifth respondent was under misconception as to the place of residence and it was also clarified and was accepted and thereafter only, he was permitted to attend viva voce examination on 03.06.2013 and taking into consideration the above facts, the learned Judge ought to have issued appropriate direction directing the appellant herein to join in the academic session commencing July 2014 and prays for appropriate orders. 9. Per contra, Mr. M. Dhamodaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 has invited the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by them and would submit that the application itself should have been sent on or before 30th September of that year and admittedly, it was sent belatedly and the fifth respondent/TNPSC has unilaterally conducted the viva voce on 03.06.2013 and the said Act also is in consonance with the guidelines for admission for the reason that for entry into the July term, the concerned candidate should be less than 11½ years and not more than 13 years as on 1st July of that year and admittedly, the appellant herein has crossed that age and therefore, no relief can be granted to him. 10. The fifth respondent/TNPSC did not file counter either in the writ petition or in this writ appeal. 11. This Court has paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 12. This Court while ordering notice to the respondents in this writ appeal has granted interim orders on 10.04.2014 in M.P. No. 2 of 2013, directing the fourth respondent to keep vacant one seat for admission to 8th Standard in July 2014 sessions, pending further orders. 13. 12. This Court while ordering notice to the respondents in this writ appeal has granted interim orders on 10.04.2014 in M.P. No. 2 of 2013, directing the fourth respondent to keep vacant one seat for admission to 8th Standard in July 2014 sessions, pending further orders. 13. A careful scrutiny and analysis of the above said facts would lead to the only inference that the appellant herein was not at all at fault, as the application for admission to RIMC, Dehradun was sent through courier well within time and due to the fact that the fifth respondent has shifted its office from Omandurar Estate, Chennai-2 to Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai-3, the application was returned and the father of the appellant met the officials of the fifth respondent and explained the reasons and it was accepted by the fifth respondent and the appellant was permitted to participate in the written examination. The result of the entrance examination held on 1st and 2nd of December 2012 would disclose that from the State of Tamil Nadu, the appellant herein has alone passed the written examination and therefore, he was very much optimistic that he will receive a call letter. Unfortunately, fate has played its role and he did not receive the call letter and on enquiry came to know that the fifth respondent did not sent the call letter for the reason that he was not the native of the State and once again the appellant and his father approached the fifth respondent and having convinced about the fact that the petitioner is a native of the State, has permitted him to attend the viva voce on 30.06.2013. 14. A perusal of the admission application form submitted through the fifth respondent would disclose that the permanent address of the writ petitioner is Eda Street, Agaram Village & Post, Madhanur (via), Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu and the address for correspondence is given as 3-5-33/4, Keshavanagar Colony, Attapur, Hyderguda (Post), Hyderabad-48, Andhra Pradesh and on account of the same, the fifth respondent got an impression that the writ petitioner/appellant is not a resident of the State of Tamil Nadu and subsequently the position was clarified and having realized the mistake and got convinced about the nativity of the appellant herein, the fifth respondent has conducted viva voce on 03.06.2013. 15. 15. As already pointed out above, the appellant herein cannot be blamed for the lapses or mistakes committed by the fifth respondent either deliberately or inadvertently and he should not have been made to suffer for the mistake committed by the fifth respondent to which the appellant has not contributed anything. No doubt, the writ petitioner/appellant has crossed the prescribed age of 13 years as on today and the same cannot be put against him for the reason that he cannot be put to any blame. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Asha v. PT.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others AIR 2012 SC 3396 : (2012) 7 SCC 389 , has considered the following questions: “4...(a) Is there any exception to the principle of strict adherence to the rule of merit for preference of courses and colleges regarding admission to such courses? (b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant academic year is a date which admits any exception? (c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairness and transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations? (b) Whether the cut-off date of 30th September of the relevant academic year is a date which admits any exception? (c) What relief the courts can grant and to what extent they can mould it while ensuring adherence to the rule of merit, fairness and transparency in admission in terms of rules and regulations? (d) What issues need to be dealt with and finding returned by the court before passing orders which may be more equitable, but still in strict compliance with the framework of regulations and judgments of this Court governing the subject?” The facts of the case would disclose that the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had cleared her Higher Secondary Examination and in response to the application for admission for MBBS, BDS and BAMS issued by the first respondent, she took the entrance examination and was successful and in the councelling, she could not get admission to MBBS course as she was lower in merit and on the same day, participated in the councelling for admission to BDS course and subsequently a declaration was made with regard to the conducting of 2nd councelling for allotment of seats to MBBS course and the appellant again participated in the councelling, but her name and roll number was not declared and when the list of allocation of seats was displayed, it came to light that though the appellant had not been admitted to the MBBS course, candidates who ranked below her in the merit list has been given admission to MBBS course. The appellant made a challenge as to the non-admission to MBBS course by filing a writ petition and it was allowed and the respondents filed an appeal and the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had allowed the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by considering the points urged before it, in para 21, has observed as follows: “21. At this stage, we may refer to certain judgments of the Court where it has clearly spelt out that the criteria for selection has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the States, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the scheme formulated by this Court and duly notified by the States, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the rule of merit can be compromised. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been a casualty. It will be useful to refer to the view consistently taken by this Court that merit alone is the criteria for such admissions and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. (Ref.: Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 , Harshaliv. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 13 SCC 464 , PradeepJain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 , SharwanKumar v. DG of Health Services (1993) Supp (1) SCC 632, PreetiSrivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 , Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg (2005) 13 SCC 749 and AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428 ).” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also taken into consideration the time schedule prescribed for admission to professional courses and in paras 24 & 31 held as follows: “24.The Court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to professional courses and the entire life of a student depends upon his admission to a particular course. Every candidate of higher merit would always aspire admission to the course which is more promising. Undoubtedly, any candidate would prefer course of MBBS over BDS given the high competitiveness in the present times, where on a fraction of a mark, admission to the course could vary. Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the authorities concerned to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. It is one of their primary obligations to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and college, as per his preference. We are not oblivious of the fact that the process of admissions is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions, which must be performed in a fair and proper manner i.e. strictly in consonance with the relevant rules and regulations. ....... 31. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to deny admission to meritorious students. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ultimately held that the appellant therein could be given admission to MBBS course, preferably and if it is permissible, admission to none of the other candidates to the MBBS course may be disturbed and if for whatever reasons, it is not possible to do so, in that event, the candidate last in the merit who has been granted admission to the MBBS course shall be transferred to the BDS course and the appellant shall be admitted to the MBBS course. 17. In the considered opinion of the Court the appellant herein has been put to grave prejudice and hardship on account of the acts of the fifth respondent/TNPSC as pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs. 17. In the considered opinion of the Court the appellant herein has been put to grave prejudice and hardship on account of the acts of the fifth respondent/TNPSC as pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that for admission to RIMC, Dehradun, the appellant was the sole successful candidate from the State of Tamil Nadu and a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would disclose that the sole ambition of the petitioner is to get admitted in RIMC and thereafter to serve the country and it cannot be nipped in bud on account of the lapses/mistakes on the part of the fifth respondent, for which the appellant herein is in no way responsible. 18. It is settled position of law that if justice and technicalities is fitted against each other, justice should be rendered and this is one of the case in which, this Court should come to the rescue of the appellant. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 18.1. In the decision reported in Union of India and Others v. R. Reddappa and Another (1993) 4 SCC 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the Court is satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness, then the restriction, self-imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule or technicality on exercise of power, can stand in way of rendering justice. 18.2. In the decision in Asha v. PT.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not only unfortunate, but apparently unfair that a meritorious candidate is denied admission. 19. This Court has also reserved one seat in RIMC, Dehradun for admission to 8th Standard for the academic session commencing July 2014,vide order dated 10.04.2014 in this writ appeal and therefore, there cannot be any impediment for passing orders directing the fourth respondent to admit the writ petitioner/appellant herein. 20. In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 22.11.2013 made in W.P. No. 22120/2013 as well as the impugned order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the third respondent are set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to admit the appellant herein, namely, G. Ravindra Nath Yadav to VIII Standard for the academic session commencing July 2014 forthwith. No costs. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Appeal allowed.