S. SUBABALASUNDARI Vs. TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the Oral Test for the post of Assistant in the Madras High Court Service, considering the petitioner's representation, dated 08.01.2015. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a widow, since her husband died on 01.06.2013. She is holding Master's Degree in Tamil with M.Phil. In response to the Advertisement No. 19/2013, published on 22.11.2013 by the respondent, inviting applications for Direct Recruitment to various posts, including 37 Assistant posts, in the Madras High Court Service, the petitioner made application through On-line for the post of Assistant, stating that she is a destitute widow of Backward class community. After scrutiny of the application, the petitioner was permitted to write the Written Examination held on 23.02.2014. The Registration Number allotted to the petitioner was 100105126 and the petitioner successfully passed in the written examination, which is not in dispute. As directed by the respondent, the petitioner sent all her certificates in support of her claim made in her On-line application and after verification of certificates, the register number of the petitioner was also published in the Provisional List of eligible candidates for admission to Oral Test to be held from 06.01.2015 to 08.01.2015. On 06.01.2015, the petitioner went to the respondent office to attend the interview, however, she was unreasonably not permitted to attend the interview on the ground that she possesses only 'B.C. widow' certificate and not 'B.C. Destitute widow' certificate, as stated in her application. Explaining the reasons, the petitioner made a representation, dated 08.01.2015, to the respondent, requesting to permit her to attend the interview on 08.01.2015. Since she was not permitted to attend the interview, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) According to the petitioner, she was denied opportunity by the respondent to participate in the oral test without any valid reason. It is her further contention that she was selected in the written test by the respondent, only after accepting the certificates sent by her and she was called for the oral interview, however, she was not permitted to attend the interview by the respondent, without any justifiable reason.