Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2916 (MAD)

Neelofhar v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

2014-08-27

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for applications for Direct Recruitment to the posts included in Combined Subordinate Service Examinations-I Services 2010. The petitioner made her application and her registration Number is 01017078. The petitioner was issued Hall Ticket and she wrote the written examination held on 30.07.2011. The marks obtained by the candidates, who appeared for the written examination, as per rank order was published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner had secured 219 marks and her rank Number is 16. But subsequently, she was not called for interview. Yet another candidate having registration No.17002085, who has secured less marks was called for interview. On coming to know the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 31.10.2012 requesting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to call her for oral interview. But it was not considered by the respondent. Therefore, she is before this Court, seeking a direction to categorize her as Back Ward Class Muslim Woman and then select her, based on her merit. 2. The Joint Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has filed a detailed counter, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner, in her application, had claimed that she belongs to backward class Muslim. But the petitioner had not enclosed a copy of the community certificate in support of her claim that she belongs to BC (Muslim) along with her application and she also had not shaded the respective column i.e. column No.26 in the OMR sheet. Therefore, the petitioner was treated as a candidate under “Others”. The petitioner had secured 219 marks. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, based on the requirement, fixed the following cut off marks for interview posts and non-interview posts. Interview post GT (General) GT (Women) 1. Common Degree Posts 244.50 237.00 2. ASO Finance 243.00 235.00 3. Junior Co-operative Auditor 243.00 235.50 Non-Interview Post Total Marks Qualification Date of Birth Category 238.50 Degree 30.06.1977 GT (General) 234.00 Degree 01.06.1982 GT (Women) Since the petitioner had not fallen within the zone of selection for the interview posts, she was not called for interview. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was treated under the “Others” category since she had not secured the required cut off marks. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was treated under the “Others” category since she had not secured the required cut off marks. In this, no infirmity is noticed. But, all that is contended by the petitioner is that she should have been treated as Backward Class Muslim Woman. The petitioner, though had claimed that she belongs to Backward Class Muslim Woman, she had not produced any document showing the same. Such certificate should have been produced before the results were published. The petitioner had failed to do so. Therefore, she was treated as “Others” category and that is why she was not called for interview as against the quota reserved for Backward Class Muslim Woman. 5. Of course, this Court in some of the cases has taken a view that Community Certificate, if produced at least before the certificate verification, it will satisfy the requirement. But, in this case, the certificate was not even produced before the interview. 6. Above all, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that selection process was completed long before and all the posts have been filled up. 7. In view of all the above, no relief could be granted to the petitioner by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 are also dismissed. No costs.