Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for direction, directing the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Firemen in the Fire and Rescue Department in the selection process of Firemen Recruitment 2007 in Na.Ka.No.A1/3710/2008 under ward quota, who secured the cut off marks prescribed by the first Respondent. 2. The petitioner is a B.Sc., Maths graduate and got diploma decree in Computer Science. The petitioner's father is working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Department. The first respondent issued a paper publication calling for the application to fill up 339 posts of Fireman in the Department of Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue under Firemen Recruitment 2007. The petitioner applied for the said post under the reservation category of Backward class and ward quota. The first respondent reserved 10% for the Backward class and ward quota in the selection process of Firemen in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Department. 3. The petitioner enclosed the certificates for his educational qualification, Community Certificate for B.C., and Transfer Certificate for age proof, service certificate along with application and applied under the reservation category of Backward class quota and ward quota. After considering his application, the first respondent sent a hall ticket to the petitioner for written test to be conducted on 05.10.2008. The petitioner appeared for written test and passed in the written examination. The first respondent through the second respondent sent a call letter to attend physical fitness test and Certificate verification. The petitioner attended for physical test and certificate verification. At the time of certificate verification, the petitioner produced all the certificates including ward certificate issued by competent authority. The petitioner secured 12 marks in the physical test and 52 marks in the written test. Totally he secured 64 marks. 4. According to the petitioner, the cut off marks fixed by the first respondent for B.C., category who comes under ward quota is 64 marks. The petitioner has secured required cut off marks for the appointment, but he was not considered under ward quota as he did not submit the same along with the application form and therefore, he was not selected. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition for Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Firemen in the Fire and Rescue Department. 5. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition for Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Firemen in the Fire and Rescue Department. 5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that in the notification, dated 18.07.2008 in column V, it was clearly mentioned that the candidates claiming consideration under ward quota must enclose the ward certificate obtained from the Zonal Officer, Fire and Rescue Services Department with the application. The petitioner did not enclose the ward certificate and did not produce the ward certificate before the Sub Committee, wherein, the physical Measurement Test and Certificate Verification were done on 5.12.2008. Hence, in the record (Coding Sheet) prepared at the Sub-Committee also he was shown as non-ward candidate. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard Mrs. S. Vijaya Shanthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgements reported in (2010) 2 MLJ 146 (Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 002 vs. M. Chitra and another) and in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the order reads as follows:- "...7. There can be no controversy that the instructions to candidates and the brochure bind the candidates and the Service Commission, according to which, the candidates are bound to produce all the necessary documents/certificates along with the application. In general, the application shall be rejected for non-production of such certificates/documents. But, in our considered opinion, an exception can be carved out to the same. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to clarify that all certificates, which are required to be produced along with application, cannot be treated equally. There are some certificates, like certificates relating to the basic qualification etc., which are essential, without which the applications cannot be entertained at all. On the other hand, there are certain other certificates, like Community Certificate, certificates relating to special consideration, like sports certificate, NCC, NSS Certificates, etc., which are not essential for entertaining the application of the candidates. So, there can be no controversy that non-production of the former kind of certificates within the cut off date, shall be a ground to reject the application summarily, as mentioned in the instructions to the candidates and information brochure, because, they relate to the essential qualifications for making application. So, there can be no controversy that non-production of the former kind of certificates within the cut off date, shall be a ground to reject the application summarily, as mentioned in the instructions to the candidates and information brochure, because, they relate to the essential qualifications for making application. To put it otherwise, unless the Service Commission is satisfied about the eligibility criteria based on the said certificates, it cannot entertain the applications, and therefore, the applications in such an event are to be necessarily rejected. 8. Insofar as the later kind of certificates are concerned, for entertaining the application, these certificates, which relate only to special qualifications or consideration, are not that much material. Even in the absence of these certificates, the applications are to be entertained and when the question of considering the special qualifications or status arises, it would be suffice, if the certificates are made available to the Commission. For example, if a candidate claims that he/she is entitled for being considered under the quota reserved for Schedule Tribe Community and if the required Community Certificate is not produced, his/her application cannot be rejected, but instead he/she has to be treated under the open quota. For any reason, if such a Community Certificate is produced before the date of finalization of the provisional selection list based on the cut off marks secured in the written examination, in our opinion, the same would be suffice." 2009 Writ L.R. 849 (C. Stella Mary vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & another) and in paragraph 12 of the order reads as follows:- ...12. The crucial factor to be considered in such a case, is whether on the crucial date viz., on the date of making application, the candidate was a destitute widow or not. Production of certificate is only to prove the said fact. Whether it is produced along with the application or some time later, is immaterial. If such a certificate is produced before the list of candidates is finalised for interview, in my considered opinion, that would serve the purpose and would not prejudice the cause of the other candidates. " and Writ Appeal (MD) No.626 of 2010, dated 19.10.2010 in paragraph 4 of the order reads as follows:- "4. In our considered opinion, production of destitute widow certificate, along with the application, is not absolutely necessary. " and Writ Appeal (MD) No.626 of 2010, dated 19.10.2010 in paragraph 4 of the order reads as follows:- "4. In our considered opinion, production of destitute widow certificate, along with the application, is not absolutely necessary. When a similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2009, decided on 11.11.2009, to which one of us was a party (Justice S. Nagamuthu), the Division Bench has taken a view that there are certain certificates which are to be necessarily submitted along with the application and there are certain other certificates production of which would be suffice if such production is made before the finalisation of the select list. In the said case, the precise question which came up for consideration was as to whether production of community certificate along with the application was necessary and whether the belated production of the same would not satisfy the requirements. After having considered various aspects, the Division bench took the view that insofar as the community certificate, is concerned, it would be suffice if the same is produced just before the finalisation of the select list. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed as follows: & quot ;8. Insofar as the later kind of certificates are concerned, for entertaining the application, these certificates, which relate only to special qualifications or constructions, are not that much material. Even in the absence of these certificates, the applications are to be entertained and when the question of considering the special qualifications or status arises, it would be suffice, if the certificates are made available to the Commission. For example, if a candidate claims that he/she is entitled for being considered under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community and if the required Community Certificate is not produced, his/her application cannot be rejected, but instead he/she has to be treated under the open quota. For any reason, if such a community Certificate is produced before the date of finalization of the provisional selection list based on the cut off marks secured in the written examination, in our opinion, the same would be suffice & quot; 8. In the judgment, it has been held that certain documents are absolutely necessary for considering the case of candidates in the selection process. Failure to submit those documents is fatal for considering the said application. In the judgment, it has been held that certain documents are absolutely necessary for considering the case of candidates in the selection process. Failure to submit those documents is fatal for considering the said application. There are certain documents failure to submit those documents along with application is not fatal and a candidate is entitled to be considered in that category, if concerned documents are produced at the time of interview before the finalization of selection list. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that failure of a candidate to submit all the required documents along with application is not fatal in respect of certain documents like caste certificate, Destitute certificate etc., If a candidates produced such certificate before the finalization of selection list, the authorities must consider the candidate in the relevant reserved category. 10. The respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the necessary certificate along with the application. This stand of the respondents is contrary to the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. In the present case, the petitioner produced the certificate that he is a ward of serving employee at the time of fitness test. The petitioner has produced necessary certificate before the finalization of selection list. 11. In view of this fact, the ratio of the judgments reported in (2010) 2 MLJ 146 (Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 002 vs. M.Chitra and another), 2009 Writ L.R. 849 (C.Stella Mary vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & another) and Writ Appeal (MD) No.626 of 2010, dated 19.10.2010 are squarely applicable to the facts of the petitioner's case and he is entitled to be considered in the reserved category of ward of serving employee. This Court by the order, dated 25.02.2009 has already directed the respondents to keep one post, of Firemen in the Fire and Rescue Department in the Selection process of Firemen Recruitment 2007, vacant. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim under the ward quota and issue further orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 is also closed.