Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 547 (MAD)

L. Udhayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-02-28

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to treat the petitioner in the category of person, who studied in Tamil Medium, and consequently, to select and appoint the petitioner to the post, to which he is found eligible as a person who studied in Tamil Medium, from amongst the posts, which were advertised/notified vide Advertisement No.257, dated 29.12.2010 to the Group-I service. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- 2(1) The 2nd respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short 'Commission' ) vide Notification No.257 dated 29.12.2010 called for applications to fill up 131 vacancies for various posts under Group-I Services. Amongst the 131 vacancies, 22 + 1 = 23 vacancies were set apart for Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe respectively as backlog vacancies. 108 vacancies are current vacancies. The petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste category and he has studied in Tamil Medium throughout his educational career. 2(2) In the year 2010, the Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to provide for preferential treatment to persons, who studied in Tamil medium (in short 'PSTM') and introduced an Ordinance, whereby 20% of all Government posts were to be filled up on a preferential basis by persons who studied in Tamil Medium. Subsequently, the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act, namely, Act 4 of 2010, whereby the Government reiterated its policy decision. Thus, persons who studied in Tamil Medium are entitled to 20% reservation of the posts in Government services after the year 2010. 2(3) Pursuant to the Notification No.257, dated 29.12.2010, the petitioner had filled up the application form strictly as per the instructions given in the Information Brochure to candidates, which is given along with the OMR Form. In the OMR Form, for the enclosure of certificate, the columns were provided for the following certificates alone certificates in proof of date of birth, community certificate, technical qualification, educational qualification for adequate knowledge in Tamil, practical experience, Conduct Certificate and under the special categories physically challenged certificate, destitute widow certificate, Ex-Serviceman certificate. No column was provided in the OMR Form to shade the box to claim PSTM reservation. No column was provided in the OMR Form to shade the box to claim PSTM reservation. Only under the impression that the petitioner would have to produce the proof at the time of interview, the petitioner did not enclose any certificate in proof of the fact that he is claiming the post as a person who studied in Tamil Medium. If there was a column to enclose the certificate to claim the status of a person who studied in Tamil Medium, the petitioner would have enclosed all the certificates since the petitioner had all the certificates in his possession always. 2(4) As per the Notification of the Commission, the process of selection consists of three successive stages namely 1) preliminary examination, 2) main written examination and 3) oral interview. The petitioner had passed the preliminary examination and main written examination. He was qualified for the oral interview, which is in the ratio of 1:2. In the main written examination along with the oral interview, the petitioner has obtained 345 marks. But, in the oral interview, the petitioner was not selected for counseling for allotment of post. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's claim by the Commission is that the petitioner has not enclosed any certificate in proof of the fact that he is claiming as a person who studied in Tamil Medium i.e., PSTM reservation, at the time of submitting/filling up the application form. Though the candidates, who have obtained much less marks in SC category than the petitioner, have been selected to various posts, whereas the petitioner who is more meritorious has been kept out of the zone of consideration. 2(5) In fact, at the time of appearing for oral interview itself, the petitioner had taken all the original certificates in proof of the fact that he had studied in Tamil Medium. But, the respondent-Commission refused to treat the petitioner as a PSTM on the ground that he had not applied as a person claiming PSTM reservation. But, the fact remains that absolutely, no column was provided in the application form to mention PSTM category and no mentioning was made in the application form to enclose any certificate to claim PSTM reservation. But, the respondent-Commission refused to treat the petitioner as a PSTM on the ground that he had not applied as a person claiming PSTM reservation. But, the fact remains that absolutely, no column was provided in the application form to mention PSTM category and no mentioning was made in the application form to enclose any certificate to claim PSTM reservation. Since the application form did not provide a provision to enclose the certificate, a confusion was created in the mind of the petitioner as to whether the certificate has to be enclosed along with the application or not. That is the only reason, for non-enclosure of certificate by the petitioner along with the application form. 2(6) But, the respondent-Commission entertained the applications of several other candidates who have not enclosed necessary certificates. Hence, the Commission having entertained the applications of other individuals, though they have not enclosed necessary certificates, ought to have extended the same benefit to the petitioner and selected and appointed him to any of the post to which he is eligible under the PSTM category. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 3(1) Opposing the claim of the petitioner, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission stating that the Commission in its Notification dated 29.12.2010 had invited applications from the candidates for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts included in Group-I services, for the year 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, to fill up 131 vacancies. The petitioner is one among the candidates who applied to the Commission for the said recruitment. Totally 268 candidates had appeared for the oral test for the said posts held on 01.02.2013, 02.02.2013, 04.02.2013 and 05.02.2013. Among them 131 candidates have been called for counselling on 14.02.2013 to fill up the 131 vacancies and selection memo have been issued to 126 candidates, who had chosen the post, based on the option exercised by them. Hence, the 2nd phase of counselling for the above said recruitment was conducted on 28.03.2013 to fill up the 5 unfilled vacancies in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I). The selection memos have been issued to five candidates, who have chosen the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Hence, the 2nd phase of counselling for the above said recruitment was conducted on 28.03.2013 to fill up the 5 unfilled vacancies in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I). The selection memos have been issued to five candidates, who have chosen the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 3(2) Para 4(c) of the Notification issued by the Commission relating to the said recruitment reads as under:- “Candidates who claim reservation with reference to orders issued in the GO should enclose evidence in support of their claim. Applications submitted without evidence for PSTM (PSTM – Person Studied in Tamil Medium) will not be considered for the above said reservation.” The petitioner has not enclosed any evidence for having studied the prescribed educational qualification in Tamil Medium, along with his application form as mandated in para 4(c) of the Notification. Hence, he was considered to have not claimed PSTM reservation and therefore, he was rightly considered under SC(G) category. Based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Written Examination and in the Oral Test, following the Rule of reservation of appointments and the number of vacancies, he has not been called for counselling held on 14.02.2013. The marks obtained by him is 345.00 (Written Examination mark 291.00 + Oral Test mark 54.00). The marked obtained by the last selected SC (G) candidate is 346.50. 3(3) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the fact that there was no specific column in the OMR Form with regard to PSTM reservation, the candidates were specifically directed in Para 4(c) of the Notification to enclose evidence in support of their claim and it was also clearly stated that the applications submitted without evidence for PSTM will not be considered for the PSTM reservation. Since the petitioner failed to claim PSTM reservation by not enclosing the PSTM certificate, he was not considered and it is not possible for the Commission to assume his category and to treat him as a PSTM candidate. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that OMR Form, under which the petitioner applied for the vacancies, did not prescribe the enclosure of certificate for having studied in Tamil Medium. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that OMR Form, under which the petitioner applied for the vacancies, did not prescribe the enclosure of certificate for having studied in Tamil Medium. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Clause 26 of the OMR Form and submitted that in the list of documents to be enclosed, the certificate with regard to having studied in Tamil Medium did not find a place. Since no column was provided in the application with regard to enclosure of certificate to claim PSTM reservation, a confusion was created in the mind of the petitioner, as to the stage at which the certificate has to be produced. That is why, the petitioner did not enclose the necessary certificate. However, the petitioner has enclosed all the documents evidencing the qualification prescribed for the post including his qualification in Tamil as required under Clause 15(c) of 'Instructions to Candidates”. The petitioner had taken all the original documents in proof of the fact that he had studied in Tamil Medium, to the oral interview. But, the Commission refused to treat the petitioner under PSTM category on the ground that he has not applied under PSTM Category as he failed to enclose the proof for the same. 5. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained 345 marks; that many candidates who have obtained much less marks than the petitioner, have been selected to various posts; that although the petitioner is meritorious, he was kept out of the zone of consideration, only for the reason that he has not enclosed the certificate in proof of the fact that he studied the prescribed qualification in Tamil Madium. Further, the non-production of the certificate along with the application form cannot be put against the petitioner, since in the OMR Form the enclosure of the certificate for the claim of having studied in Tamil Medium was not made as a mandatory. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Commission has entertained the applications of many candidates, who have not enclosed the certificate in proof of the fact that they have studied in Tamil Medium. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Commission has entertained the applications of many candidates, who have not enclosed the certificate in proof of the fact that they have studied in Tamil Medium. The candidates with Registration No.00902285 and 99964066 have been permitted to write the preliminary examination as well as main examination without enclosure of any proof of the fact that they have studied in Tamil Medium and subsequently, they have been selected in the oral interview also. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the List of the Withheld Cases, wherein the above two candidates having Registration Nos.00902285 and 99964066 found place at Serial Nos.31 and 122 respectively. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commission had accepted the proof of PSTM Category only at the oral interview for all the candidates. Under such circumstances, the petitioner, being a similarly placed person having submitted the proof of PSTM Category in Oral interview, ought to have been selected by the Commission as in the case of the other selected candidates. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting the attention of this Court to the subsequent On-Line Application published by the Commission dated 04.08.2012 for the filling up of the post of Village Administrative Officer, submitted that in the said application, the Commission had included necessary instructions with regard to PSTM category and in the 'Instructions to the Candidates' the Commission has clearly prescribed the fact that the candidates have to declare in the application itself, if they are applying under the category of PSTM. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by realizing their mistake committed in the earlier application, the Commission has prescribed the method in the application to apply for the post under the category of PSTM and clearly stated the stage at which the PSTM Certificate has to be produced. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-mentioning of the enclosure of certificate with regard to having studied in Tamil Medium created a confusion in the mind of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-enclosure of the said certificate along with the application. 8. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivery in W.P.Nos. Hence, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-enclosure of the said certificate along with the application. 8. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivery in W.P.Nos. 37308 of 2005 etc (batch cases) dated 07.11.2006, (Dr.A.Rajapandian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others), submitted that in that case, the TNPSC-Commission invited the applications in respect of appointments to the post of 'Veterinary Assistant Surgeon' in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06. Some of the applications of the petitioners therein were rejected by the Commission on the ground of non-production of Veterinary Council Registration Certificate. When the same was challenged before this Court contending that in the relevant clause with regard to the list of enclosures, the Veterinary Council Registration Certificate does not find a place, this Court has held that if there was any confusion created on the minds of the candidates, the blame squarely lies on the Commission and the right to selection is determined by the fact that the candidate belonged to that category and not by the certificate, which was only a piece of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dictum laid down in the above said judgment squarely applicable to the present facts of the case also. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the worst, the non-enclosure of PSTM Certificate with regard to the proof of the fact that he had studied in Tamil Medium should be considered only as a procedural lapse and it can not take away the substantive right of the petitioner to be considered for PSTM reservation. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 6 MLJ 1211 [C.Stella Mary Vs. TNPSC]. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by applying the dictum laid down in the above said Judgments, the present writ petition could be allowed. 10. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the TNPSC-Commission submitted that Instructions and Application are dated 22.10.2009, which is prior to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on preferential basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (in short 'PSTM Act'). 10. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the TNPSC-Commission submitted that Instructions and Application are dated 22.10.2009, which is prior to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on preferential basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (in short 'PSTM Act'). The said PSTM Act was published in the Government Gazette only on 02.12.2010. As a result, all that the TNPSC could do to implement the reservation for the recruitment in question was to announce the reservation in the Notification dated 29.12.2010. It was not possible for the TNPSC to re-print the “Instructions to the candidates” or 'MOR Form' to incorporate provisions regarding PSTM reservation between 02.12.2010 and 29.12.2010, as hardly 27 days was available for the TNPSC in between those two dates. Therefore, much care was taken to announce the reservation in the Notification/Advertisement, in response to which alone candidates like the petitioner herein applied for the recruitment. The Commission through Clause 4(b) & (c) of Instructions to the Candidates announced the reservation, which is very informative. Under the said clauses, it has been clearly spelt out that the applications submitted without evidence for PSTM will not be considered for reservation. The learned counsel for the Commission submitted that there is no scope for creating any confusion in the mind of the petitioner. 11. Further, the learned counsel for the Commission denied the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commission has entertained the applications of several candidates who have not enclosed the certificate in proof of the fact that they have studied in Tamil Medium. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Commission submitted that though they have not enclosed necessary certificate, they have submitted a letter along with the application form stating that they have studied in Tamil Medium and they are claiming reservation under PSTM Category. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not given any letter along with the application form. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the Commission by inviting the attention of this Court to the Instructions to the Candidates submitted that in Clause 11 of the Notification, it has been clearly stated that photo copy of necessary certificate should be sent along with application. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the Commission by inviting the attention of this Court to the Instructions to the Candidates submitted that in Clause 11 of the Notification, it has been clearly stated that photo copy of necessary certificate should be sent along with application. While so, nothing prevented the petitioner from enclosing a photo copy of the certificate in support of his claim or a letter to the effect that he had studied in Tamil Medium and he is claiming under PSTM Category. In the absence of any evidence, the Commission cannot assume that the petitioner is claiming under PSTM category and treat him under PSTM category. The learned counsel for the Commission has also submitted that the enclosure of necessary certificates along with the application form is mandatory and not directory. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Commission has placed her reliance on the judgment reported in 2009(3) MLJ 197 (K.Arun Sabhapathy Vs. The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission & others). 13. The learned counsel for the Commission has also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 18 (Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others) and submitted that in that case, advertisement was made by the Punjab Technical University in order to conduct the Common Entrance Test for recruitment for various post at degree level and in the Information Brochure, it was clearly mentioned that incomplete applications and those received after the prescribed date shall not be entertained. When the application submitted by the petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that it was received after the due date, the same was challenged by the petitioner therein before The Court. In that case, it was held by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Court that the negative prohibitory and exclusive words are clearly indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the said judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Court is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. In the instant case, under Clause 4(c) of the Notification, it has been clearly stated that the application without evidence for PSTM will not be considered. Hence, since the petitioner failed to enclose the necessary certificate, the petitioner's claim has been rightly rejected by the Commission. 14. In the instant case, under Clause 4(c) of the Notification, it has been clearly stated that the application without evidence for PSTM will not be considered. Hence, since the petitioner failed to enclose the necessary certificate, the petitioner's claim has been rightly rejected by the Commission. 14. That apart, the learned counsel for the Commission by inviting the attention of this Court to Clause 6 of the Notification, which prescribes the Procedure of Selection, and submitted that if the Schedule Caste candidate does not enclose the evidence for his claim of PSTM Category, the said vacancy would be given to the non-PSTM candidate belongs to Schedule Caste. In the instant case, the petitioner has not enclosed the PSTM Certificate along with the application form. Therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. Thus, the learned counsel for the Commission prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 15. From the above submissions made on either side, the following questions fall for consideration (1) Whether the non-mentioning of requirement of enclosure of certificate in the OMR Form with regard to the fact that he had studied in Tamil Medium would create a confusion in the mind of the petitioner, as to whether he should enclose the certificate in support of his claim for PSTM reservation, along with the application or not? (2)Whether the non-enclosure of the certificate in proof of having studied in Tamil Medium along with the application form is a procedural lapse, and whether the non-enclosure of the said certificate would take away the substantive right of the petitioner to be considered for PSTM reservation? 16. Question No.1:-With regard to the first question, much reliance was placed on Clause 26 of the OMR Form by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in which some columns were provided specifying the list of document to be enclosed along with the application for. As per Column 26 in the OMR Form, the certificates which are to be enclosed are certificate in proof of date of birth, community certificate, qualification, technical qualification, education qualification for adequate knowledge in Tamil, practical experience, conduct certificate and under the special categories physically challenged certificate, destitute widow certificate and Ex-Serviceman certificate. For the said certificates, there were columns provided for shading in the OMR Form. But, no column was provided in the OMR Form for specifying the claim for PSTM category. For the said certificates, there were columns provided for shading in the OMR Form. But, no column was provided in the OMR Form for specifying the claim for PSTM category. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the columns in the application are not in consistent with the Notification issued by the Commission, which led to creation of a confusion in the mind of the petitioner. 17. But, as contended by the learned counsel for the Commission, I find from the records, that Instructions and Application are dated 22.10.2009. The PSTM Act was published in the Government Gazette only on 02.12.2010. The impugned Notification/Advertisement was made on 29.12.2010. There was only 27 days in between the date of issuance of the Act and the date of issuance of the impugned Notification. Therefore, it was not possible for the Commission to re-print the “Instructions to Candidates” and “OMR Form” to incorporate provisions regarding PSTM reservation. However, in the Notification the reservation has been announced by the Commission, in response to which alone the candidates like the petitioner applied for the recruitment. It has been clearly stated under Clause 4(c) of the Notification that the candidates who claim reservation with reference to orders issued in the said GO should enclose evidence in support of their claim and the applications submitted without evidence for 'PSTM' will not be considered for the above said reservation. The Clause 4(c) of the Notification is very informative and it is unambiguous. The negative words couched in Clause 4(c) of the Notification would make the provision mandatory and imperative. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Commission reported in AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 18 (Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others), wherein it has been held as follows:- “In the Information Brochure, it is provided, “incomplete applications and those received after the prescribed date shall not be entertained under any circumstances”. University has adopted negative prohibitory words to bring home imperative nature of the provision. Usage of negative words are indicative of the prohibitory and imperative nature of the provision. University has adopted negative prohibitory words to bring home imperative nature of the provision. Usage of negative words are indicative of the prohibitory and imperative nature of the provision. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lachmi Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 714 observed, “if the provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can rarely be directory, the use of peremptory language in a negative form is per se indicative of the intent that the provision is to be mandatory.” The negative prohibitory words used in the Information Brochure go to establish the mandatory nature of that provision. It is settled law that negative prohibitory and exclusive words are clearly indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision. Negative words are ordinarily used to make a provision imperative. Since, the Information Brochure has used words shall not be entertained, we are clear in our mind that the said provision is mandatory and no relaxation can be made.” The dictum laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 18. The petitioner has sent his application only pursuant to the Notification dated 29.02.2010. When Clause 4(c) of the Notification is mandatory, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-mentioning of enclosure of certificate in the OMR Form, in proof of the fact that he had studied in the Tamil Medium, created a confusion in the mind of the petitioner, will not serve as a ground to issue a mandamus to the Commission as prayed for in this writ petition, since in my considered opinion, when the petitioner is applying for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Gr-I), he must be in a position to understand the clauses contained in the said Notification. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-mentioning of the enclosure of Certificate of PSTM in the OMR Form created a confusion in the mind of the petitioner. 19. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-mentioning of the enclosure of Certificate of PSTM in the OMR Form created a confusion in the mind of the petitioner. 19. Question No.2:- It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-enclosure of the PSTM Certificate at the time of submitting the application, at the worst, be considered as a procedural lapse and it will not take away the substantive right of the petitioner to be considered for PSTM reservation, since he has produced the certificate in proof of the fact that he had studied in Tamil Medium at the time of oral interview, but, the Commission refused to treat the petitioner under PSTM category as he has not enclosed the PSTM certificate along with the application form. Further, according to the petitioner, though the petitioner had secured 345 marks, the candidates who obtained much lower marks than the petitioner and who have not enclosed the Certificate for PSTM reservation along with the application form, were considered and selected to various posts, but the petitioner was not considered for appointment. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court delivered in a batch writ petitions in W.P.Nos. 37308 of 2005 etc (batch cases) dated 07.11.2006, (Dr.A.Rajapandian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others), wherein it has been held that if there was any confusion created in the minds of the candidates, the blame squarely lies on the TNPSC and not on the candidate. But, on perusal of the facts of that case, I find that in that case, the TNPSC invited the applications in respect of appointment to the post of 'Veterinary Assistant Surgeon' in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06. The applications of some of the petitioners therein were rejected by the Commission on the ground that they have not enclosed the Veterinary Council Registration Certificate along with the application form. In the said case, in the list of certificates to be enclosed along with the application form, the Veterinary Council Registration Certificate does not find a place either in the Information Brochure or in the Notification/Advertisement. Under such circumstances only, the Division Bench of this allowed the batch writ petitions. In the said case, in the list of certificates to be enclosed along with the application form, the Veterinary Council Registration Certificate does not find a place either in the Information Brochure or in the Notification/Advertisement. Under such circumstances only, the Division Bench of this allowed the batch writ petitions. But, in the instant case, under Clause 4(c) of the Notification, the enclosure of the evidence in support of claim for PSTM reservation was made mandatory. Therefore, the dictum laid down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case. 21. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 6 MLJ 1211 (C.Stella Mary Vs. TNPSC) also. But, on a reading of the said judgment, I find that in that case, TNPSC called for applications for the Combined Subordinate Service Examination-I, Group II, on 03.06.2007 vide Advertisement No.115 and the petitioner therein applied for the same under Destitute Widow Category on 28.07.2007. But, while submitting her application, since she did not readily have destitute widow certificate that had to be obtained from the competent authority, she submitted a letter along with the application, intimating the respondent that she would submit the destitute widow certificate as soon as she gets the same from the competent authority. Her application was entertained by the respondent-Commission and Registration Number was assigned to her. Subsequently, the petitioner therein obtained destitute widow certificate dated 31.07.2007 on 02.08.2007 and immediately submitted a copy of the same to the respondent. Thereafter, she was allowed to take up the written examination held on 17.11.2007 and the results were declared on 21.02.2008, wherein it was declared that the petitioner therein had passed the written examination and qualified for interview. On 25.02.2008, the Commission sent a letter to the petitioner calling upon her to send a copy of the hall ticket along with a copy of destitute widow certificate. The petitioner therein immediately complied with the same. Thereafter, she was called for interview, and she had also appeared for the interview and produced all the certificates. On perusing the destitute widow certificate, the Officers of the Commission were satisfied and they retained the original destitute widow certificate with them for office purpose. The petitioner therein immediately complied with the same. Thereafter, she was called for interview, and she had also appeared for the interview and produced all the certificates. On perusing the destitute widow certificate, the Officers of the Commission were satisfied and they retained the original destitute widow certificate with them for office purpose. But, subsequently, the Commission sent a memorandum dated 16.04.2008 informing the petitioner therein that her claim for consideration under the destitute widow category was not accepted, since the destitute widow certificate sent by her on 24.10.2007 was received by the respondent after the last date for receipt of the application. Under these background only, this Court held that if such a certificate is produced before the list of candidates is finalised for interview, that would serve the purpose and it would not prejudice case of other candidates. 22. The said judgment is totally on different factual aspect. In the said judgment, the petitioner therein has given a letter along with the application form stating that she is submitting the application for appointment under the destitute widow category and she would submit the destitute widow certificate as soon as she gets the same from the competent authority, thereby she had made it clear that she was applying under the category of destitute widow. But, in the instant case, no evidence was produced by the petitioner at the time of submitting the application for appointment under the category of PSTM. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case. 23. As observed earlier, the negative words couched in Clause 4(c) of the Notification, viz., “applications submitted without evidence for “PSTM” will not be considered for the above said reservation” made the provision mandatory and imperative. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that enclosure of the certificate for 'PSTM' does not find a place in the list of documents mentioned in Column 26 of OMR Form and that non-enclosure of the said certificate has to be considered only as procedural lapse, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that enclosure of the certificate for 'PSTM' does not find a place in the list of documents mentioned in Column 26 of OMR Form and that non-enclosure of the said certificate has to be considered only as procedural lapse, cannot be accepted. Further, I am of the opinion that unless the petitioner made his intention clear at the time of submitting the application form that he is applying under the PSTM Category by producing evidence to that effect, it is not possible for the Commission to scrutinize the candidature and to assume that the petitioner claims under PSTM Category. 24. Further, as per Section 6 of the said Act, if adequate number of qualified and suitable persons who studied in Tamil Medium are not available for appointment in the preferential vacancies, such unfilled vacancies shall be filled up with persons who studied in other mediums within the respective category. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the Commission, if a Schedule Caste Candidate does not enclose evidence in support of his/her claim for PSTM reservation, then the said vacancy has to be thrown open or given to a Non-PSTM candidate belonging to Schedule Caste. Therefore, the enclosure of the evidence along with the application for claiming PSTM reservation is mandatory. Under such circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-enclosure of the said certificate is only a procedural lapse and it would not take away of the substantive right of the petitioner to be considered for PSTM reservation. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.