The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued advertisement No.258, calling for applications for direct recruitment to the posts included in combined subordinate services Examination-I (examination/service code No.004). The petitioner submitted her application. The selection process consisted of two successive stages namely, written examination followed by oral test. The petitioner participated in the written examination and thereafter she was called for interview. At that time, she produced her community certificate to show that she belongs to Most Backward Community. But, in the final selection list, she was not selected on the ground that the petitioner had not annexed the community certificate along with her application. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider her for the said post under the Most Backward Community/Deserved Category for Female.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, interalia, it is stated that in her application, the petitioner had rightly claimed that she belonged to MBC/DC Category. Based on the marks obtained by her in the written examination, following the rules of reservation of appointments, qualifications, age and vacancies, the petitioner was summoned for oral test under Most Backward Community (W) Category. At the time of certificate verification, it was found that she had not produced the community certificate along with her application and in the column No.26 of the application, showing the enclosures of documents also, she had not shaded box No.3 relating to community certificate. However, the petitioner was permitted to attend the oral test on 03.07.2012, but the result was withheld. It is further stated in the counter that paragraph No.15 of the instructions of the candidates states that candidates should enclose xerox copies of the certificates duly attested by Group-A/Group-B Officers along with application. Therefore, as per instruction etc to the candidates and as per Office Order No.59 & 60, dated 07.11.2006, the candidate has to be treated as 'others'. Therefore, the claim of the candidate as Most Backward Community was not considered and she was treated under the category of 'others' since the petitioner had not reached the zone of admission to oral test counselling, under General Term category. The petitioner secured only 229.50 marks in the written examination. Since the cut off marks for General Category is 234, she was not considered for selection for the appointment.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner rightly claimed in her application that she belonged to MBC/DC Category. The application was accepted and the petitioner was treated as the candidate belonging to MBC/DC Category. That is why she was called for interview, based on her marks. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a xerox copy of the community certificate was, in fact, annexed to the application, but by inadvertence, it was failed to be mentioned in the application. At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute even now that the petitioner belongs to MBC/DC Category. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming for a moment that community certificate was not annexed to the application, on that score, the petitioner's claim that she belongs to MBC/DC should not have been rejected. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Premanand Vs The State of Tamil Nadu.

5. That was a case, where a candidate, born to the parents, who had entered into inter-caste marriage between the scheduled caste and forward community, failed to submit the relevant certificate