Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.1918 of 2010 dated 11.6.2012. 3. The appellant has filed the said writ petition praying for declaration, declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in not selecting the appellant in any one of the posts, earmarked for the Destitute Widow in the Notification/Advertisement Nos.176 and 178, issued in respect of the Combined Subordinate Services and appoint pursuant to its Notification/Advertisement Nos.176 and 178 for the Combined Subordinate Services is null and void and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the appellant to any of the posts earmarked/reserved for the Destitute Widow in the Notification/Advertisement Nos.176 and 178 issued calling for applications upto 18.12.2008 and 30.12.2008 in respect of Combines Subordinate Services in the vacant/unfilled post even after the publication of the results. 4. The case of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that she is a Destitute Widow and she had submitted an application to take part in the selection process, pursuant to the Notification/Advertisement Nos.176 and 178 issued in respect of the Combined Subordinate Services to any one of the posts, reserved for Destitute Widows, however, she has not enclosed the Destitute Widow certificate along with the application, though she had shaded the column to claim as a Destitute Widow. 5. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Destitute Widow certificate even on the date of oral interview or on the date of certificate verification. The said position is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the appellant had obtained Destitute Widow certificate on 20.11.2009. The results of the selection was published on 17.11.2009. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had not obtained the required certificate not only on the date of application, oral interview or on the date of selection, still she claimed selection under Destitute Widow category. 6. The results of the selection was published on 17.11.2009. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had not obtained the required certificate not only on the date of application, oral interview or on the date of selection, still she claimed selection under Destitute Widow category. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that even after 2009, two selections were conducted and the posts notified were also filled up and there is no vacancy available now. 7. Since the appellant has not even obtained Destitute Widow certificate before the selection, the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, as there was no valid proof to show that the appellant can claim reserved seat under Destitute Widow quota. There is no valid ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 8. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.