Judgment: 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the non-selection of the petitioner to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in Government Higher Secondary Schools – 2011-12 and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to appoint her as P.G. Assistant (Tamil). 2. The petitioner, who holds a Post Graduate Degree in Tamil from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and also a Degree in Bachelor of Education, submitted her application for recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistants for Government Higher Secondary Schools – 2011-2012, under direct recruitment method, pursuant to the notification issued by the 3rd respondent Board. The petitioner appeared for the written examination on 27.05.2012 and on being successful, she was called for certificate verification, which was held on 30.10.2012. Since the Original SSLC Marks Statement was not available with the petitioner, she applied for a duplicate copy of the same to the 2nd respondent and the same was furnished to her only subsequently, after the certificate verification was over. Therefore, on the date of certificate verification, ie., on 30.10.2012, since the petitioner failed to produce the Original SSLC Marks Statement, her candidature was rejected. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, again, called for Certificate Verification and the petitioner submitted all her academic and experience certificates. However, the petitioner was not selected. Though she made a detailed representation to various authorities to consider her for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant, it did not evoke any response. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. While ordering notice of motion on 23.05.2013, this Court directed the respondents to keep one post vacant. 4. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 15.09.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at the time of certificate verification, the petitioner had produced a xerox copy of the SSLC Marks Statement since, she lost the original and for non-production of the original of SSLC Marks Statement, her candidature has been rejected, which is not justified. Further, the learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner had applied for issuance of a duplicate copy of SSLC Marks Statement as early as on 13.09.2011, the same was furnished to her only subsequently, after the certificate verification was over, for which she cannot be blamed. 5. Based on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, on 15.09.2014, directed the learned Government Counsel to get instructions. 6. 5. Based on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, on 15.09.2014, directed the learned Government Counsel to get instructions. 6. Today, when the writ petition is taken up, the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that the non-selection of the petitioner was not due to non-production of the original of SSLC Marks Statement, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The non-selection is on account of the fact that the petitioner secured only 102 marks, less than the cut-off marks fixed for MBC category. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Though the reason for initial rejection of the petitioner's candidature, as could be seen from page No. 35 of the typed set of papers, is for non-production of the original of SSLC Marks Statement, subsequently, even as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner was again called for certificate verification by the 3rd respondent and the ground on which her candidature was rejected, in the ultimate selection, as could be seen from page No. 48 of the typed set of papers, is that she secured only 102 marks, less than the cut-off marks, namely, 107, fixed for MBC candidates. But, as per clause 15 of the notification issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.02.2012, calling for applications for direct recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistants/Physical Education Directors Grade 1 in Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service, weightage marks will have to be awarded for period of wait in the Employment Exchange and for teaching experience, for the shortlisted candidates, after certificate verification. The relevant clause is extracted hereunder: 15. Weightage marks: Weightage marks as detailed below will be given after Certificate Verification for the short-listed candidates. These marks will be added to Written Examination marks for preparing the final merit-communal Selection list. Number of Years Marks (i) Period of wait after registration in the Professional & Executive Employment Office, Chennai – 4 1 to 3 years less than 3 years 1 3 to 5 years – above 3 years and less than 5 years 2 5 to 10 years 3 10 years and above 4 (ii) Experience of teaching in 11 & 12 std. In any recognized School 1 to 2 years 1 2 to 5 years 2 5 years above 3 At page No.26 of the typed set of papers, wherein the written examination result of the petitioner, from the website, has been published, the marks obtained is shown as 102' and even after certificate verification, for which the petitioner was short-listed, the total marks obtained by the petitioner is shown as 102'. This would only go to show that the petitioner has not been awarded due weightage marks, as per clause 15 of the notification, extracted above. 9. A perusal of the papers shows that the petitioner had registered herself in the Employment Exchange in the year 2000 and she has got more than 3 years of teaching experience as per the certificates enclosed in the typed set of papers. In that event, as per the said clause, she is eligible to get 6 more marks (4 marks for period of wait in the Employment Exchange and 2 marks for teaching experience) as weightage marks and her total marks would come to 108', which is more than the cut-off marks fixed for MBC candidates. In such circumstance, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. 10. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 3rdrespondent is directed to select the petitioner for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) within a period of two weeks and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to issue consequential appointment order to the petitioner as P.G.Assistant (Tamil) within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs. Connected M.Ps are closed.