IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.1166 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 A.Gomathy .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government Home (Police IV) Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police / Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3.The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under the Special Category for selection as Grade II Police Constable and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable for the year 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard the submissions made on either side.
2.The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for being selected to the post of Grade-II Police Constable under Special Category namely, the category of “Wards of Policemen” and consequently, direct the petitioner to be appointed in the selection conducted for the year 2009.
3.The petitioner is a Graduate in Science and Computer Application. The second respondent issued a notification calling for applications for selection of men and women for the post of Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service for the year 2009. The petitioner’s father Mr.N.Annamalai was a Head Constable in Thiruvannamalai District and he retired from service.
4.The Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.Ms.No.834, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 10.09.2001 ordered that the wards of police personnel will be entitled for preference in the matter of appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable and 10% seats were allotted for the wards category. This Government order was subsequently clarified by a Government letter dated 26.03.2002. Since the petitioner’s father was a retired Head Constable, the petitioner applied under the said quota and also enclosed the relevant details.
5.The petitioner was directed to appear for the written examination on 25.10.2009 and she secured 47 marks. Thereafter, she was directed to appear for the physical test on 11.12.2009 and she came out successful by scoring 6 marks and thus, in total, she had secured 53 marks. The cut off marks for wards quota was 30 marks and based on the marks secured, the petitioner was directed to appear for certificate verification on 11.12.2009. The petitioner is stated to have produced the employment certificate of her father to show that he was a retired Head Constable and also produced certificates to prove her educational qualification, proof of age and community certificate and other certificates. However, her name did not find place in the selection list. On verification, the petitioner was informed that she was not considered in the wards category and considered in the general category and since she has not secured the required cut off marks, she was not selected.
6.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had participated in the selection during 2008 and even during the said selection, she had applied under the wards quota and she enclosed a certificate dated 11.12.2006 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District stating that she is the daughter of Mr.N.Annamalai, who was then serving as Head Constable and that she is eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable under 10% reservation ordered in Government letter dated 12.04.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.834, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 10.09.2001. Though she had applied for the previous selection, she was not selected as she did not secure the required cut off marks. In the present selection, the petitioner had enclosed the wards certificate dated 11.12.2006 to establish that she is the daughter of Mr.N.Annamalai, who was then serving as Head Constable in Thiruvannamalai District. Even prior to applying for the present selection, the petitioner approached the District Police Office for issuing a certificate with the current date in the new format to enable her to apply under the wards category. However, she was informed that since already a certificate dated 11.12.2006 has been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, a fresh certificate would not be required. Therefore, the petitioner applied with the certificate issued in 2006. Her non-selection is being challenged on the ground that the officer, who verified the certificate, did not cause proper verification of the wards certificate and the relevant details given by the petitioner in the application form, more particularly, in column No.13. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court stating that her non-selection is due to non-application of mind.
7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that the notification clearly stipulates that the certificate certifying the wards status should be obtained in the new format and should be on the date of selection. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner having not fulfilled the conditions in the notification, she is not entitled for being selected under the wards category.
8.In my view, the stand taken by the second respondent is hyper-technical. Admittedly, the petitioner is a ward of a policeman, who retired from service as Head Constable from Thiruvannamalai District. She had applied under the wards category for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable during the previous selection, but was unsuccessful, since she did not secure the required cut off marks. In the present selection, she has produced the certificate dated 11.12.2006 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District. This certificate clearly states that she is a ward of a policeman and she is also entitled for being considered for appointment under 10% reserved category, as ordered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.834, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 10.09.2001 and Government letters dated 12.04.2002 and 26.03.2002. Therefore, the status of the petitioner as being a ward of a policeman cannot be disputed. If that be the case, the next question which has to be considered is as to whether the petitioner can be denied being considered under the wards category, merely because she did not furnish the certificate of the current date in the revised format. It is to be noted that though at the time of applying for the said post, the petitioner had produced a certificate dated 11.12.2006. But at the time of certificate verification, the petitioner had produced the certificate dated 08.12.2009 certifying her status as ward of policeman and this certificate in the new format is accepted to have been produced at the time of certificate verification held on 11.12.2009.
9.While considering the said question, we are guided by the judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.585 of 2009. The said writ appeal came to be filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission against an order dated 06.08.2008 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.6252 of 2008. The writ petitioner in the said case could not produce her community certificate to prove her communal status, since her communal status was under verification and at the time of applying for being selected to the post of Village Administrative Officer, she claimed that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. She was provisionally selected under the said quota and when called for certificate verification, she could not produce the community certificate, since the same was still pending enquiry before the competent authority. Nearly one month after the completion of the certificate verification, the community certificate was issued to her stating that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. When she produced the certificate before the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the same was rejected by stating that the certificate was produced much after the cut off date and therefore, it cannot be accepted. The learned single Judge rejected the objection raised by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and allowed the writ petition.
10.Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, W.A(MD)No.585 of 2009 came to be filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Division Bench of this Court considered the aspect as to nature of certificates and effect of production and non-production at the time of applying and held as follows:
“7………At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to clarify that all certificates, which are required to be produced along with application, cannot be treated equally. There are some certificates, like certificates relating to the basic qualification etc. which are essential, without which the applications cannot be entertained at all. On the other hand, there are certain other certificates, like Community Certificate, certificates relating to special consideration, like sports certificate, NCC, NSS Certificates etc. which are not essential for entertaining the application of the candidates. So there can be no controversy that non-production of the former kind of certificates within the cut off date, shall be a ground to reject the application summarily, as mentioned in the instructions to the candidates and information brochure, because, they relate to the essential qualifications for making application. To put it otherwise, unless the Service Commission is satisfied about the eligibility criteria based on the said certificates, it cannot entertain the applications, and therefore, the applications in such an event are to be necessarily rejected.
8.Insofar as the later kind of certificates are concerned, for entertaining the application, these certificates, which relate only to special qualifications or consideration, are not that much material. Even in the absence of these certificates, the applications are to be entertained and when the question of considering the special qualifications or status arises, it would be suffice, if the certificates are made available to the Commission. For example, if a candidate claims that he/she is entitled for being considered under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community and if the required Community Certificate is not produced, his/her application cannot be rejected, but instead he/she has to be treated under the open quota. For any reason, if such a Community Certificate is produced before the date of finalization of the provisional selection list based on the cut off marks secured in the written examination, in our opinion, the same would be suffice.”
Ultimately, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
11.In my considered view, the ratio of the decision in the above matter could be applied to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the petitioner is a ward of a policeman and she had produced the certificate issued during the year 2006 though not in the proper format as in the present notification. The authorities processed the application under wards category and directed her to appear for the written test. On being successful in the written test, directed to undergo the physical test and she was also successful in the said test and secured a total marks of 53. The cut off marks for wards category was only 30 marks and therefore, she was called for certificate verification on 11.12.2009. During the certificate verification, she had produced the ward certificate in the proper format as per the notification. This certificate in the new format is dated 08.12.2009. However, the Committee, which verified the certificate, appears to have not taken into consideration the same, since it was not appended to the original application. The procedure adopted by the Committee is not reasonable since the petitioner had established the fact that she is a ward of the policeman even at the time of application and only defect was that the form of certificate was not as per the present notification. In any event, the form of certificate would not deny the petitioner status of being a daughter of Mr.N.Annamalai.
12.It is not the case of the respondents that her parentage is proved for the first time by means of this ward certificate. There are several other records to establish that she is the daughter of Mr.N.Annamalai. It has been further stated that the petitioner also produced her father’s employment details while applying for the post under wards category. These matters have been brushed aside by the respondents while considering the petitioner for selection. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not being able to produce the certificate in the new format, as she has stated that the District Police Office had informed her that the certificate issued in 2006 was good enough for the present selection also.
13.I find no reason to doubt the bonafide of the statement of the petitioner. In any event, one could also perceive the difficulty in obtaining certificate especially from the statutory authorities. Furthermore, when the petitioner applied for the present selection, her father was no longer in service and had attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, I am of the view that the benefit should go the petitioner and the selecting authorities ought to have adopted a more reasonable approach in the matter. As stated earlier, the petitioner had applied for the previous selection under the wards category and she was considered. But however, she was unsuccessful as she did not secure the required cut off marks.
14.Hence, for all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider and select the petitioner under the Special Category of wards quota for the post of GradeII Police Constable for the selection conducted in the year 2009 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.02.2010
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Note : Issue order copy on 22.02.2010 (Monday)
TK
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home (Police IV) Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police / Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
TK
W.P.No.1166 of 2010
19.02.2010