IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.3202 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 K.Arulkumar .. Petitioner Vs. The Chairman-cum-Director General of Police Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Anna Salai, Chennai 2 .. Respondent Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to award One Mark for the NSS Certificate as per the Information Brochure issued by the respondent and include the petitioner in the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of Grade II police Constable or Fireman for the year 2010 and consequently appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable or as Fireman for the year 2010 on par with his batch mates with all consequential service benefits within a time frame as deem fit and proper by this Honourable Court. For Petitioner :: Mr.V.N.A.Ghouse Gani For Respondent :: Mr.S.Sivashanmugham, G.A O R D E R The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Grade II Police Constable or Fireman for the selection held in the year 2010. The petitioner went through the selection process. As he was not selected for the post applied for, he has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to award One Mark for the NSS Certificate as per the Information Brochure issued by the respondent Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. 2. The contention of the petitioner was that the information brochure was furnished along with the application providing the guidelines for the Board to award marks and in respect of the persons who have gone through NSS, NCC and Sports, special marks to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be awarded has been furnished in the brochure. For any candidates who produced NSS certificate, one mark will be awarded and even that one mark was divided and for the NSS Volunteer, half mark and those who participated in the Republic Day Parade at New Delhi National Integration Camp, Inter State Youth Exchange Programme another half mark will be given and those for rendering leadership under the NSS Scheme, one mark is awarded. According to the petitioner, he had produced a NSS Certificate showing his participation in the NSS and inasmuch as he is not awarded mark for such additional qualification, this Court should come to his rescue and grant the necessary mark. 3. When the matter came up on 10.2.2011, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice and get instructions. Ultimately a counter affidavit has been filed by the Chairman of the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board dated 1.3.2011. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that though the marks were awarded for the persons who produced proof for having served 2 years service in NSS, in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner produced NSS certificate only for participation in the Leadership Training Programme in which it was indicated that he participated three days training and that Certificate cannot be taken into account. The Certificate that is required to be produced for award of mark is stipulated by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.8, dated 21.1.2002. Inasmuch as the petitioner's certificate was not in order, he was not rightly awarded any mark under the category of NSS. It was further indicated that the petitioner secured 58 marks in written test and 12 marks in physical efficiency test and he got totally 70 marks and he belonged to MBC Community. The cut off mark for such persons for Armed Reserve is 79 marks, Special Battalion 72 marks and Jail Warder 71.50 marks and for Fireman 71 marks. As he has not reached the minimum cut off mark for the said post, he cannot be selected and therefore the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 4. In opposition to the counter, the petitioner relied upon the Certificate produced before this Court, which is found enclosed in page 4, wherein the petitioner had obtained a Certificate – 'A' for the year 2005-2007 issued by the Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram and it is stated that the Certificate was issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 21.2.2002. According to the petitioner, this Certificate was produced at the time of Certificate Verification. Therefore, it should be taken into account. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Since, in the counter affidavit, it was stated that the certificate was not enclosed by the petitioner in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.8, the petitioner having produced a copy of the Certificate along with the typed set of papers, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to produce a copy of the G.O.Ms.No.8, dated 21.2.2002. Accordingly, a copy of the said Government Order has been produced. 6. The said Government Order clearly stipulates that in respect of 'A' Certificate, the training should be 240 hours for a period of two years and one should have attended one Special Camp and the criteria for production of 'A' Certificate was done in consultation with the Deputy Programme Adviser, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports. It is the standard certificate that is required for the award of extra marks in any scheme of selection. No doubt, the Certificate now produced before this Court which is found at page 4 is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.8, Youth welfare and Sports Development Department dated 21.2.2002 referred to above. 7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has produced the said Certificate along with the application form. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that if it is not produced along with the application form, since it is produced at the time of certificate verification, the respondent is yet to evaluate the same and should have awarded the special mark. 8. In support of his contention, the petitioner produced a copy of the judgment passed by this Court in P.Selvaraj vs. Director General of Police, Chennai and another in W.P.No.566 of 2009 dated 28.9.2010. In that judgment, this Court directed the respondents to award extra marks on account of the participation of the candidate in the NSS Programme. This Court referred only the brochure in the form of instruction to the candidates. After referring the same, in paragraph 11 observed as follows: "As per the notification NSS volunteers will be awarded 0.5 marks for their participation. In the absence of, any specific criteria, for award of 0.5 marks, in the notification, this Court is of the considered vie that it is not open to the respondents to reject the NSS Certificate for consideration, for awarding special marks. All that is stated in the notification is that for special qualification such as participation in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ N.C.C., N.S.S., and Sports depending on the level of participation, maximum of 5 marks are allotted. Out of 5 marks, minimum 1 mark has to be awarded to NSS, 2 marks for NCC and 2 marks for Sports/Games. The level of participation in NSS or NCC etc., has also not been indicated in the notification. In so far as the participation of the petitioner is concerned, the Program Coordinator and the Vice-Chancellor of Periyar University, Salem has awarded a certificate stating that the petitioner has actively participated in a 10 days programme on the theme "Rain Water Harvesting, the Role of Youth in Cleanliness", organised at Kannangurichi, village/slum from 19.9.2003 to 28.9.2003 and that he has worked satisfactorily during the camp. It is well settled proposition of law that conditions in the notification for selection binds both parties and no shortlisting can be made, by taking into consideration factors which are not disclosed in the notification. It is in that premise, this Court directed that the marks should be awarded. 9. It is unfortunate that in the said case the State Government did not produce before this Court a copy of the G.O.Ms.No.8, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department dated 21.2.2002, which became the basis for grant of 'A' Certificate for the purpose of consideration in granting the certificate. In any instruction issued by a recruiting agency, the recruiting agency must be guided by an appropriate guidelines issued by the Government as they do not have any power to decide the criteria for awarding of marks. Therefore, the basis for awarding of marks as found in the instruction to the candidates issued along with the application for selection must have a necessary Government guidance and since the respondent is guided by G.O.Ms.No.8, this Court cannot give any direction contrary to the said Government Order in awarding of marks. Any such direction will be repugnant to any selection process and beyond the judicial review available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In any event, the short question of awarding extra marks only on the ground that the petitioner is possessed of the Certificate but not produced along with the application form need not be gone into in the present case. The learned Government Advocate circulated the original file relating to the selection. It is found that in the application form submitted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner in Column No.13, which is intended for the list of documents to be enclosed along with the application form, it is clearly stated that attested copies of documents along with the application to be sent and the serial No.13 relates to NSS Certificate. As against the box provided in the said column, the petitioner has blackened it, thereby indicating that he has sent the certificate. However, it is seen that in the application form sent by the petitioner, he has produced only the certificate issued by the Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram indicating the participation of the petitioner in the Leadership Training Programme organized by the Director of School Education at Chennai between 28.1.2006 to 30.1.2006 for a period of three days. The endorsement made by the verifying authority, namely Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore showed that this Certificate cannot be counted as it is not a Certificate in accordance with the information brochure. This record found in the original file is clearly reflected in the counter filed wherein the petitioner was not given any mark as he had not produced the certificate in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.8, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department dated 21.2.2002. 11. Though the petitioner had now produced the certificate and contended that this was also produced at the time of certificate verification, it was not the requirement under law that when the Certificate is not enclosed along with the application form, the said Certificate should be taken into account even if it is produced at the time of verification. In fact the necessity of verification is only to compare the attested copy with the original copy and not a new right for the petitioner to produce at the time of certificate verification before the authorities. If at all any mistake has happened, it is for the petitioner to blame himself for not adhering to the requirement under law. This Court did not find any merit in the petition. The judgment relied on by the petitioner does not support his case, as the said judgment has been rendered in specific facts. Further, the requirement of the Certificate is governed by the said Government Order. 12. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ajr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Chairman-cum-Director General of Police Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Anna Salai, Chennai 2 1 cc to Government Pleader, sr. 19223 1 cc to mr.V.N. A. Ghouse Gani, Advocate, Sr. 18903 W.P.No.3202 of 2011 PA (CO) kk 6/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/