JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned List dated 01.09.2014 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to conduct the oral test following the Rule of Reservation as contemplated in Notification No.2/2013 of the respondents for filling up of the vacancy under GT Blind CT Vacancy for the post of Executive Officer, Grade – 1 pursuant to Notification No.2/2013 dated 21.02.2013.) The impugned notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) on 01.09.2014 providing intimation to the candidates for oral test is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner states that the petitioner is practicing advocate before the High Court of Madras for about 9 years. The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in Group-1 B Service, as per the notification No.2 of 2013 dated 21.02.2013. The notified vacancies are 8 in number in the cadre of Executive Officer Grade-I in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department. 3. The petitioner states that he is 100% visually disabled and applied for the examination through online on 11.03.2013. He was issued with the hall ticket and participated in the examination with the help of the scribe. The 2nd respondent published the list of selected candidates on 03.01.2014 and the petitioner was in 18th place out of 45 candidates, and he was expecting an intimation for production of original certificates for verification. To his surprise the 3rd respondent published another additional list of 40 candidates for the selection to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I on 05.05.2014, without assigning any proper reasoning. The petitioner claims that he is eligible for appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I as per the notification and he was provisionally admitted for certificate verification. Therefore, he must be permitted to participate for the certificate verification for final selection and appointment to the said post. 4. The Counter filed by the HR&CE Department reveals that the petitioner participated in the process of selection. The TNPSC was requested to proceed with the process of selection for appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in HR&CE Department, accordingly, notification was issued and application from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment was invited. 5. 4. The Counter filed by the HR&CE Department reveals that the petitioner participated in the process of selection. The TNPSC was requested to proceed with the process of selection for appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in HR&CE Department, accordingly, notification was issued and application from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment was invited. 5. A clarification was sought for by the TNPSC in letters dated 27.09.2014 and 25.02.2015, from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, as to blame candidates and in response to the same the Government in letter (Rt) No.201, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (R.E.2-1) Department dated 31.08.2015 had issued necessary clarification to the TNPSC informing that: “In G.O.(Ms)No.53, Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department dated 11.04.2005, the Government have identified among other things that the past of Executive Officer, Grade-I in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is suitable for the differently abled persons in Group 'B' category. The Physical requirement for the above said post is work performed by sitting/work performed by walking/work performed by seeing/work performed by reading/writing/work performed by standing. The categories of disabled persons suitable for this job is partially blind/partially deaf /orthopedically handicapped. Therefore, 100% blindness of visually handicapped persons are not eligible for the above said post. The enormous duties and onerous responsibilities of the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department cannot be handled by 100% blindness of visually impaired persons.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the clarification was issued subsequent to the written examinations. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is the clarification sought for by the TNPSC, who is the recruiting agency and the appointing authority namely the Government had clarified that 100% visually disabled persons are not eligible for the appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in HR&CE Department, as they may not be in a position to perform the duties, responsibilities attached to the post in an effective and efficient manner. 7. This apart, the clarification was issued pursuant to the doubt raised by the TNPSC. Therefore, assessment of suitable is propagative of the employer. Even the selection would not confer any right on the candidate for appointment. 7. This apart, the clarification was issued pursuant to the doubt raised by the TNPSC. Therefore, assessment of suitable is propagative of the employer. Even the selection would not confer any right on the candidate for appointment. Even before issuance of the appointment order the authorities competent are empowered to assess the suitability and eligibility of the candidate for a particular post. The established principles are that the authorities competent / appointing authorities are empowered to assess the suitability and eligibility with reference to the rules inforced and with reference to the duties and responsibilities attached to the post for which the recruitment is made. This being the basic principles to be followed the Government clarified that 100% visually disabled person is not eligible and suitable for appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in HR&CE Department. 8. This apart, the said clarification was issued to clarify the G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 11.04.2005. Therefore, the said clarification also to be construed as related to the original Government order issued in the year 2005. Thus, the subsequent clarification after the examination would not change the circumstances, and the petitioner may be eligible for some other posts for which 100% visually disabled persons are made eligible. This being the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any acceptable grounds for considering the relief as such sought for in the writ petition. That apart, almost 8 years lapsed from the date of process of selection and now due to efflux of time the petitioner is not entitled for any other relief also. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.