The rightful claim for reservation should not be deprived on a technical ground, and delayed production of non-essential certificates, such as the Community Certificate, should be considered in special circumstances.

S. NAGAMUTHU, J

A stand, too technical, taken by the appellant to deprive the first respondent of his rightful claim for being considered for a Governmental Post, negatived in the Writ Petition is canvassed again in this Writ Appeal.

2. The appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission called for applications from eligible candidates for Group IV Service [for the posts of Village Administrative Officers] during the year 2007. Being eligible for the said post, the first respondent duly submitted her application. Indisputably, she belongs to Kattunayakan Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. But the first respondent could not submit her Community Certificate obtained from the competent authority along with her application. However, her application was entertained and she was allowed to participate in the written examination. Since she had secured required cut off marks, she was provisionally selected and called for certificate verification.

3. As a matter of fact, the first respondent made application in the year 1997 itself to the competent authority viz, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, for issuance of Community Certificate. However, such certificate was not issued in time and that is the reason why, the first respondent could not submit her Community Certificate along with her application.

4. Evenon 30.10.2007, when she appeared for certificate verification before the appellant, she could not produce her Community Certificate, since her request for issuance of Community Certificate was still pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer. She explained to the appellant about the peculiar circumstances in which she had been placed. In the meanwhile, the second respondent/the District Collector, sent a letter dated 011. 2007 informing the appellant/Service Commission that the request of the first respondent for Community Certificate was under consideration. At last, she got Community Certificate on 211. 2007. But, the said Community Certificate was not in the prescribed format as prescribed by the appellant. However, along with a written representation, she submitted the same to the appellant. Despite the same, the first respondent was not appointed and instead, by letter dated 11.06.2008, she was informed by the appellant that the provisional selection was cancelled, as she had not produced the community Certificate along with her application. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 06.08.2008. Challenging the same, the appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has come forward with the present Writ Appeal.

5. In this Writ Appeal, it is contended that as per the instructions to the candidates and information brochure issued by the appellant, the candidates were required to submit the copies of the necessary documents along with applications to prove the qualification, age, experience, community etc and it was made clear that in case of failure to produce the same, the applications shall be summarily rejected. Based on the above clauses, it is contended, since in the given case, the first respondent had failed to produce the Communicate Certificate in time, her candidature was rejected. Reliance is placed on Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that non-production of necessary certificates along with application within the cut off date shall disentitle the candidate from being considered. Therefore, according to the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the Writ Petition.

6. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records carefully.

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 candi