L. Udhayakumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu

By this intra-court appeal, the appellant questions the legality and validity of the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 7855 of 2013.

The ground of challenge before us is that the notification / advertisement No. 257 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission does not provide for submission of the certificate to indicate the Person Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) reservation. It is contended that Clause 11 deals with the enclosures to be sent along with the application. In Clause 15 of the Instruction, etc. to Candidates, which deals with the production of evidence for claims made in the application, there is no requirement of the submission of the document. In the OMR form also, the clause dealing with the documents to be produced, also does not prescribe for submission of any certificate or document as required under Clause 4(c) of the notification / advertisement.

It is trite law that if the application is not complete in all respects before the last date of submission of the application, the application deserves to be rejected straightaway. In the case on hand, the application of the appellant / petitioner was considered. The appellant / petitioner also participated in the selection process. However, the selection was denied on the ground that he was considered under SC(G) category, not under PSTM reservation, therein he was not found selected.

The learned Single Judge examined the facts and also considered the submissions of either side before coming to the conclusion that there was no confusion in respect of enclosure of certificate of PSTM. Under Clause 4(c) of the notification, the appellant / petitioner was required to enclose the evidence in support of the claim for PSTM reservation and the same was mandatory. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that since the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected in PSTM reservation category. It was not a procedural lapse.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. We have also examined the notification, memo of instructions, OMR form carefully.

Clause 4(c) clearly provides that a candidate, who claims PSTM reservation, has to enclose evidence in support of the claim. There is no confusion as the language is unambiguous and clear. If it is not provided in Clause 15 of the instructions, as pleaded by the appellant / petitioner, the appellant / petitioner cannot take a plea that the appellant was mislead under OMR form in the column, where the petitioner is required to mention in the box about the documents to be enclosed. There is a clear column for other special records, if any specified in the advertisement / notification. As aforestated, the advertisement / notification clearly provides for enclosing evidence in support of the claim for PSTM reservation. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant /petitioner that even the OMR form does not disclose the same does not merit acceptance.

It is a trite law that the condition prescribed in any of the relevant documents, i.e., notification / advertisement, instructions and forms, are treated as part of necessary information for the purpose of enabling a candidate to read, understand and apply accordingly. There is no inconsistency in the observation and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 28.02.2014.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.