The central legal point established in the judgment is that a typographical error in official documents should not hinder a candidate's appointment, and corrected certificates should be considered for candidature.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to give the petitioner posting order based on his order Ku.No.1143/Papi4/TNSTC(V)/Vellore/2007 dated 31.07.2007 selecting the petitioner to the post of Conductor taking his date of birth as 20.06.1967.)The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to give the petitioner posting order based on his order in Ku.No.1143/Papi4/TNSTC(V)/Vellore/2007 dated 31.07.2007 to the post of Conductor taking his date of birth as 20.06.1967.

2. The very short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner attended the interview, as his name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the respondent/Transport Corporation for the consideration of appointment to the post of Conductor. In this regard, on 10.04.2007, letter was issued to call the petitioner to attend an interview and the date of interview was fixed on 17.05.2007. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner attended the interview. After the interview, it seems that, since the petitioner has crossed successfully the interview, the respondent/Transport Corporation, having selected the petitioner for the purpose of consideration of certificate verification before giving appointment, had issued another communication dated 31.07.2007, directing the petitioner to attend certificate verification session along with the certificates stated therein and also a demand draft for a sum of Rs.750/~ towards the fee for the training to be undergone by the petitioner.

(ii) In order to appreciate the content of the said letter dated 31.07.2007, the same is extracted hereunder:

“TAMIL”

(iii) The petitioner also was directed to attend the certificate verification session on 14.08.2007, accordingly he attended, where, after having verified the certificates of the petitioner, the respondent seems to have found that, the petitioner-s date of birth in the Transfer Certificate produced by him, has been mentioned as 20.06.1967, whereas, in the SSLC mark sheet produced by the petitioner his date of birth has been mentioned as 20.06.1965. Because of this discrepancy, which was found by the respondent department at the time of certificate verification, they did not accept the candidature of the petitioner, therefore the petitioner could not get the appointment. Only at this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer, in the year 2008.

3. Mr.Ajay Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the discrepancy, which was found in the date of birth of the petitioner, as has been entered in the SSLC mark statement, is a mere printing mistake, as, instead of 20.06.1967, it has been wrongly printed as 20.06.1965. Therefore, the petitioner took enormous effect to the Education Department, to rectify the mistake, who, on considering the request of the petitioner, by proceedings dated 11.12.2009, has rectified the said mistake and accordingly, the SSLC mark statement has been corrected with the date of birth as 20.06.1967 instead of 20.06.1965.

4. Only after getting the said correction in the mark statement, the corrected mark statement obtained by the petitioner were filed before this Court along with M.P. No. 1 of 2013 seeking such permission to file those documents before this Court for consideration.

5. He would also submit that, however, since this Writ Petition has been pending all along, till date, no progress could be made and as of now, the petitioner is 53 years of age. Therefore, if the respondent considered the candidature of the petitioner, he should be considered for appointment from the original date i.e., in the year 2007 and accordingly, appointment with notional benefits shall be given to the petitioner, however he would be entitled to the monetary benefits on