ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Pursuant to a notification dated 28.11.2019 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission calling for applications for selection to the post of Archeological Officer in Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service for the year 2019-2020, the appellant had applied for the said post. The results were published on 30.09.2020, in which the appellant was ranked at Sl. No. 7. When the candidates were asked to upload their documents for verification directly on the website by 22.10.2020, it is her case that though she had uploaded all the required documents, her name was not found in the list of candidates published on 16.12.2020 whose original certificates were verified. Under the above referred circumstances, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. By its order dated 09.08.2021, the ld. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed as under:- "8. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in omitting the name of the petitioner herein in the provisional list of selected candidates to the posts of Archaeological Officer in the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service for the year 2019-20, pursuant to the Notification dated 16.12.2020, is declared as illegal. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to select and include the petitioner-s name in the selection list of candidates to the posts of Archaeological Officer in the aforesaid services, based on the marks secured by her and the respondents shall take further course of action for appointing the petitioner to the said post of Archaeological Officer, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. The controller of examination filed an appeal against the above referred order of the learned Single Judge which came to be allowed by the order impugned before us directing as under:- "13. On a reading of the above paragraph, it is very clear that the case of the 1st Respondent cannot be considered in the absence of the documents that have to be uploaded. 14. On a reading of the above paragraph, it is very clear that the case of the 1st Respondent cannot be considered in the absence of the documents that have to be uploaded. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that even though it appears that the 1st Respondent is highly qualified and stood in Serial No.7 in the overall rank list, Serial No.4 in, (BC category) and S1. No.2 in Women Reservation, as per the instructions/notifications, she has not uploaded the Mark Sheet to enable the Appellant to know, whether she has studied Tamil as one of the subjects or the medium of instruction is Tamil to call her for certificate verification. Hence, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. However, from the records, it appears that even though the 1st Respondent is fit to be considered for appointment, unfortunately, the Government is going to lose a good hand on technicalities. 15. In view of what is stated herein above, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.08.2021 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed." 6. Questioning the order of the High Court, the appellant filed a review challenging the order in Writ Appeal No. 2399 of 2021 which is also impugned before us by filing a separate petition. 7. Heard Mr. Vikas Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. By our order dated 09.12.2024, and in view of the fact that the appellant is highly qualified and infact ranked at Sl. No. 7, and that the Government should not lose the opportunity of employing her to serve the State as an Archeological Officer, we request Mr. K. Radhakrishnan to take instructions as to whether the appellant can be accommodated in any vacancy. Our anxiety was only to ensure that the appellant, a highly qualified candidate should not lose out on the technical ground. 9. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior counsel, having obtained instructions from the State, has submitted that there are three posts of Archeological Officer in the Department of Archaeology, State of Tamil Nadu and that the appellant can be accommodated in one of the posts after consultation with the Public Service Commission. 10. 9. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior counsel, having obtained instructions from the State, has submitted that there are three posts of Archeological Officer in the Department of Archaeology, State of Tamil Nadu and that the appellant can be accommodated in one of the posts after consultation with the Public Service Commission. 10. In view of the submission made by Mr. Radhakrishnan, we direct that the appellant shall be appointed as an Archaeological Officer after consultation with the Public Service Commission. The services of the appellant shall commence from the date the letter of appointment is issued to her. 11. We make it clear that the present order is made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. At the same time, the question of law raised by Mr. Radhakrishnan is also kept open for being considered in an appropriate case. 12. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, and the judgments and orders of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2399 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021 and in Review Application No. 50 of 2022 dated 07.11.2023 are set aside in terms of our directions as mentioned in para 10. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.