ORDER : The Provisional Selection List published by the respondents for Recruitment to the Post of District Educational Officer in proceedings dated 04.01.2017 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Further, a direction is sought for to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the oral test in the shape of interview and further a process of selection for Direct Recruitment to the Post of District Educational Officer under open category as per the Notification No.04/2014 dated 14.02.2014 and to select and appoint the petitioner as District Educational Officer. 3. The petitioner states that he is fully qualified for appointment to the post of District Educational Officer. He completed M.Sc., (Chemistry) and B.Ed., and initially he was appointed as B.T. Assistant in School Education Department on 05.03.2007 through Teacher's Recruitment Board and was posted in Government Higher Secondary School, Munugapattu, Thiruvannamalai District. 4. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 14.02.2014, the petitioner submitted his application for Recruitment to the post of District Educational Officer. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and he was successful in the written examination and thereafter, he was not qualified for the oral interview. He filed the present writ petition and this Court passed an interim order on 18.01.2017, permitting the writ petitioner to participate in the Viva voce/Oral Interview held on 19.01.2017 for selection to the Post of District Educational Officer. However, it was made clear that the interim order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents and the results of the same shall not be declared until further orders, and the writ petitioner, by virtue of the interim order cannot claim any equity at the time of final disposal. 5. Thus, this Court made it very clear at the time of passing interim order that the petitioner cannot take any undue advantage of the interim order granted by this Court to participate in the oral interview conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 6. Thus, the grounds raised by the writ petitioner is that not considering the case of the writ petitioner to appear for the oral test in spite of his selection on merits for the post of District Educational Officer would be contrary to law and in violation of the fundamental rights. 6. Thus, the grounds raised by the writ petitioner is that not considering the case of the writ petitioner to appear for the oral test in spite of his selection on merits for the post of District Educational Officer would be contrary to law and in violation of the fundamental rights. This apart, the pending charges and the details of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was duly disclosed by him in the application in the relevant column. 7. Further, it is contended that pendency of charge memo as well as the punishment of censure issued against the writ petitioner would not be an impediment for the petitioner to participate in the selection. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission relying on the counter, has stated that undoubtedly, the writ petitioner was successful in the written examination and permitted to participate in the oral interview pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. However, during the Certificate Verification, it was found that the writ petitioner is not having good character and antecedent. In this regard, paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, states that At the time of Certificate Verification, it has been ascertained from the records produced by the candidate that he had been suspended from service and then reinstated to service and four charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules for having misbehaved with female students and female colleague and finally awarded with the stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect vide Proceedings dated 20.04.2016 of the Joint Director of School Education. 9. This apart, Rule 12(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu States and Subordinate Services Rules now brought under Section 20(4) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of service) Act 2016, the charges as under:- “No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he/she satisfies the commission in cases where the appointment has to be made in consultation with it or the appointing authority, in other cases”. 10. In respect of the General Eligibility Conditions and character and antecedents, the respondents states as follows:- “3. 10. In respect of the General Eligibility Conditions and character and antecedents, the respondents states as follows:- “3. General Eligibility Conditions: A Candidate must satisfy the Commission on the following aspects:- a. xxxx b. CHARACTER AND ANTECEDENTS: That his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for the appointment” Therefore the averments/contention of the petitioner regarding the consequence of censure, that it can have applicability only when a candidate is considered for promotion and not at the time of his candidature/candidate for direct recruitment etc., is unsustainable in law. As a matter of fact, the order of Censure is itself an outcome of modification of punishment on appeal preferred by the petitioner and the gravity has its role to play, while assessing the suitability of a person to a post which requires good morals, the moral turpitude is also to be taken into account. Hence the petitioner does not deserve for any indulgence when he has involved in immoral activities. 9. It is also submitted that the above decision to deny further admission after Certificate Verification came to be taken by the Commission after deciding his character in a candid manner in the light of the post to which he aspires to be selected and appointed. The petitioner has not made out any ground for review of the decision taken by the Commission and hence even on this ground the impugned order is not liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the candidate at the stage of Certificate Verification itself was warranted and hence the rejection is valid in law. As a matter of fact, the candidature of a candidate is provisional at all stages as envisaged in the Instructions to candidates which is binding on the Writ petitioner also. Further, even in para 12(a) of the notification it has been clearly mentioned that the admission to all stages of the Examination will be purely provisional subject to satisfying of the eligibility conditions. The relevant portion is extracted below:- “Candidates should ensure their eligibility for examination: The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all eligibility conditions for admission to examination. Their admission to all stages of the examination will be purely provisional subject to satisfying of the eligibility conditions. The relevant portion is extracted below:- “Candidates should ensure their eligibility for examination: The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all eligibility conditions for admission to examination. Their admission to all stages of the examination will be purely provisional subject to satisfying of the eligibility conditions. Mere issue of memo of admission to the candidate will not imply that his/her candidature has been fully cleared by the Commission.” As such, the application of the candidate has been rightly rejected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 10. It is submitted that the Teacher profession is a noble profession which shapes the young generations to become good citizens of the Country. The petitioner has proved himself unworthy to hold the post of teacher which is explicit from the charges faced by him. In such circumstances the Commission which is bestowed with the duty of satisfying itself with the character and antecedent of the candidates by virtue of Rule 12(b) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, now Section 20(4)(i) of Act 14 of 2016 deemed it unnecessary to wait to see whether the candidate is coming up for selection and then decide his eligibility with reference to his character and antecedents, rather felt it would be correct to deny him admission to the next stage after certificate verification which is the interview stage and hence rejected his candidature for further selection process and considered another candidate as a substitute in the place of the Writ petitioner. However, it is submitted that, in obedience to the interim order of this Hon'ble Court dated 18.01.2017 the Commission has admitted the petitioner provisionally to the oral test on 19.01.2017 AN and the result of his oral test has been kept with held. 11. However, it is submitted that since recruitment to the Post of District Educational Officer has to be finalized based on rank, Rule of Reservation and the subject eligibility of the candidates and with reference to the vacancies available and thus, the selection is of a peculiar nature unless and until the validity of the rejection of his candidature in view of his unbecoming character and antecedents is decided by this Hon'ble Court, the further selection process cannot be proceeded. In other words, the selection or non-selection of one candidate decides the selection or non-selection of other candidates based on marks/rank, rule of reservation, subject vacancies and communal rotation. As such without finalizing the Writ Petition of the petitioner, no selection for this long pending recruitment could be finalized. At this juncture, it is submitted that this Hon'ble Court must be pleased to appreciate that the decision of the Commission to deny him admission to further selection process when it came+ to know of his character and antecedents is reasonable and valid more so when the post to which the Writ petitioner seeks to be considered as a candidate can by virtue of the powers attached to the post be capable of being misused by a person like the Writ Petitioner. 11.1 In view of the fact that the petitioner has not satisfied the mandatory requirements of good character and antecedent for appointment to the post of District Educational Officer and the allegation against him was in relation to the misbehaviour with girl students and the female colleagues, this Court is of an opinion that the decision taken by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to defer the selection of the writ petitioner is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity as such. 12. Thus, the impugned orders are confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.