N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.30952 of 2012 dated 7.1.2013, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, praying for a direction to provisionally select him for the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2012, subject to police verification and medical examination.

2. The case of the appellant herein before the learned single Judge was that he applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the Armed Reserve pursuant to the applications invited for selection in the year 2012. According to the appellant, he was not selected in spite of he securing necessary marks for selection under the 10% quota reserved for Wards Category. He also claimed selection under sports category.

3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not enclosed necessary certificates to prove that he is the son of a Police Personnel. Insofar as consideration under sports category is concerned, the appellant had given up his right.

4. It is the contention of the appellant that if he is considered under the wards category, he will be coming within the cut-off mark for selection and non-consideration of the appellant under the wards category due to the fault of the department in not issuing ward-cum-dependant certificate cannot be put against the appellant.

5. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ appeal it is stated that the appellant was not considered under the wards category as he has not enclosed the ward-cum-dependant certificate, for which 10% seats are reserved, though the appellant claimed in Column No.16 of the application that he is claiming seat under the wards category. The appellant secured 45 marks in written test and 9 marks in the physical verification test and totally he secured 54 marks. Therefore, the appellant was treated as MBC (General) candidate as he was ranked at 67 under MBC (General) list.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the application wherein he has claimed himself as son of a police personal viz., N.Ganesan, Constable No.3032, presently attached with Kavarapettai Police Station and persons secured upto 46.61 marks under wards category were selected and as such, appellant, who secured 54 marks is bound to be selected under Wards category. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant having enclosed police identity card issued to his father and the said identity having not been disputed, he is bound to be considered under the wards category. The learned counsel also relied on the counter affidavit filed before the single Judge, wherein it is stated that the respondent admitted that he was initially considered under ward-cum-dependants quota, however he was treated as open quota candidate in MBC category. Learned counsel further submitted that similar case was allowed by this Court in W.P.No.1166 of 2010 Judgment dated 19.2.2010 and also relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court in support of her contentions.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand argued that the appellant having not enclosed ward-cum-dependant certificate, he is not entitled to be considered under the reserved category.

8. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

9. It is not in dispute that the appellant is the son of N.Ganesan, who is serving as Police Constable with PC No.3032, attached to Kavarapettai Police Station, Tiruvallur District. The appellant also claimed selection under the Wards category. In column No.22 of the application form requiring to state whether the candidate is applying under Wards-cum-Dependant Category, the appellant shaded as "Yes". Appellant's name was also considered under the said category as per the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge.