applications were incomplete, or found to contain false or incorrect particulars and claims, they would not be considered and would be rejected, squarely applies to the present case. 25.In light of the discussion, the Writ Appeal filed by the TRB is allowed and order dated 26.09.2022, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 15.10.2025

2025:MHC:2534
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.10.2025 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A(MD)No.1491 of 2022 and
C.M.P(MD)No.12347 of 2022
The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, E.V.K Sampath Maligai,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006. … Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.S.Madheena Banu … 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai. … 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.1192 of 2020 dated 29.06.2022 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.Mohamed Imran (for R1) for M/s.Ajmal Associates
: Mr.J.Ashok (for R2)
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
One S.Madheena Banu (R1) had applied for the post of Computer Instructor, Grade I in response to Notification No.9 of 2019 dated 01.03.2019, issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB/appellant).
2. Various certificates were required to be annexed with the
application, including community certificate. The notification included 15 posts reserved for Backward Class Muslim (‘BCM’) community. As the petitioner held a community certificate attesting to her community as
BCM post marriage, she sought benefit of the same.
3. This came to the notice of the officials in the course of
certificate verification, who rejected the same as the notification required her to produce the community certificate at birth, of her father. It was then that R1 produced her father’s community certificate attesting to the fact that he belonged to Backward Community (BC).
4.In light of this discrepancy, the application was rendered ineligible. The shortlist of selected candidates thus excluded her candidature and was the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition, that came to be allowed by order dated 29.06.2022.
5.The Writ Court was of the view that though R1 had
submitted two community certificates, one under BC and another under BCM, the respondents could well take into account the certificate showing her as belonging to BC community.
6.The Court proceeded to examine the marks secured by the
candidates, finding that two provisionally selected candidates at serial Nos.431 and 432 of the list had secured marks equal to the writ petitioner but were younger in age. As all three candidates, the two provisionally selected and writ petitioner, belonged to the BC community, and the Court held that R1 was entitled for selection.
7.During the pendency of the Writ Petition, one post had been
directed to be kept vacant and R1 was directed to be accommodated in that vacancy. In the appeal, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of four weeks by order dated 15.12.2022, which does not appear to have been extended thereafter.
8.We have heard the submissions of Mr.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing for appellant, Mr.Mohammed Imran, learned counsel appearing for R1 and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R2.
9.The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, Madheena Banu @ Madhana Devi’s father belonged to BC community and holds a certificate to that effect. She married one S.Sithik Ali and converted to Islam on
09.06.2008, simultaneously changing her name to S.Madheena Banu @
M.Madhana Devi. The change of name was notified in the Government
Gazette and she was issued a community certificate as belonging to the Muslim (BCM) community.
10.It is also admitted that, in her application, R1 sought the benefit of reservation under BCM category supported by the BCM
certificate. On this ground, this Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed, as the notification makes it clear that the application should be accompanied by a community certificate, in the case of a married woman, issued in her father’s name. We extract the relevant portion of the notification in support of this factual aspect:
9.Selection:
A fresh merit list will be prepared after Certificate Verification based on the marks secured in the Online Computer Based Examination only. However, final selection will be made from the fresh merit list duly following merit-cum-communal rotation.
……….
b) Community Certificate: Community Certificate should be obtained from the following authorities of Government of Tamil Nadu for candidates claiming communal reservation as the case may be.
i) ST – Revenue Divisional Officer (if the certificate is issued after 11.11.1989) ii) SC/SCA – Tahsildar of native taluk of the candidate.
iii) BC / MBC / DNC – Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar or Special Deputy Tahsildar.
iv) Community Certificate of married women
issued in father’s name (Not in Husband’s Name) alone shall be accepted.
v) Community certificates issued by any other State or Union Territory Authorities will not be considered against vacancies reserved for 69% communal reservation. They will be considered only under Open Competition.”
(emphasis, in bold, by the Court)
11.The language as well as intent of the notification are thus
very clear, that the benefit of reservation shall be determined based on the community to which the candidate belonged by birth, and communal reservation acquired by conversion, after marriage, would not be recognized.
12.We are, therefore, in agreement with the Appellant that the
application of R1 was itself was rendered ineligible, since the R1 had, therein, sought the benefit of communal reservation acquired after conversion, upon marriage.
13.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants
cites the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.M.Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [2006 (3) CTC 449] and Director of Medical Education and another Vs. M.Aarthy [2019 SCC
Online Mad 28115].
14.In the case of Dr.M.Vennila (supra), an identical issue arose
for consideration. Referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjab University [1996 (1) RSJ 1L AIR 1996 Punj & Har 109], the Court held that where peremptory language is used in a notification, the conditions therein are mandatory, not declaratory and compliance with them is essential to determine eligibility. Otherwise, the basic principle of fairness in competitive examinations would be frustrated. The discussion from paragraph 23 onwards of the decision, underscores the importance to be accorded to prospectus or information brochure, and the contents thereof.
15.In the present case, we have noted supra that the
notification categorically states that in the case of a married woman, only the community certificate issued in the father’s name shall be accepted. It is thus clear that the TRB has taken a conscious decision that, where the benefit of reservation is claimed, the eligibility shall be based on the community at birth, and not one acquired after conversion.
16. Importantly, the notification has itself has not been challenged by R1, hence she is bound by that condition and her
application must strictly comply with all eligibility requirements.
17.At paragraph 25 of the order in Dr.M.Vennila (supra), the Bench makes it clear that no modification or relaxation can be made by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and moreover, any application filed in violation of the prospectus would be liable to be rejected. The ratio of this decision has been followed ad infinitum in subsequent cases, including the case of Aarthy (supra) cited before us.
18.The learned counsel for R1 has relied on the following
decisions:
(i) Food Corporation of India Vs. Rim Jhim [2019 (5) SCC 793].
(ii) The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and another Vs. The Chief Secretary [W.A.Nos.682 to 687 of 2023, dated 20.11.2023].
(iii) Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of
Bihar and others [2024 Live Law (SC) 1] and
(iv) The Teachers Recruitment Board Vs.
T.Sumithra and others [W.A.No.148 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024].
19.The above decisions are distinguishable on facts. In Rim Jhim (supra), the Supreme Court considered whether non-production of an experience certificate along with the application would render it invalid. The Court distinguished between an incident of ‘fact’ and its proof, holding that the candidate in that case, in fact, possessed the required experience, and hence, non-production of the experience certificate would not be fatal.
20.The Court held that only essential requirements must be
satisfied. In that case, the essential requirement was that the candidate should have obtained the diploma before the last date for application, which had been fulfilled. Applying that decision in the present case, the essential requirement is that in order to obtain eligibility, the application ought to have been accompanied by a community certificate attesting to the community of the candidate at birth (father’s community certificate in case of unmarried candidate).
21. This is an essential condition, one that has not been
satisfied in this case, as the community certificate produced was one obtained after conversion on marriage. Hence, the essential condition has not been satisfied in the present case and the ratio of the decision in Rim
Jhim (supra) would work against the interests of R1.
22.In Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the Court noticed that
the candidate had participated in the selection and cleared the stages successfully. However, he had committed the error of recording his date of birth as 08.12.1997, instead of 18.12.1997. The Court called the aforesaid error a trivial one, that would not be fatal to his selection.
23. As in the case of Rim Jhim (supra), the Court observed that
where the relevant fact/material was established, non-production of proof might not be fatal. In our view, a trivial error like the one in Vashist Narayan Kumar’s case, cannot be compared to the serious
irregularity/illegality committed by R1.
24.R1’s application has been rendered invalid by her failure to
comply with a specific and mandatory condition of the notification. The stipulation in clause 10(5) of the notification to the effect that if applications were incomplete, or found to contain false or incorrect particulars and claims, they would not be considered and would be rejected, squarely applies to the present case.
25.In light of the discussion, the Writ Appeal filed by the TRB is allowed and order dated 26.09.2022, is set aside. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 15.10.2025
NCC :Yes
Index :Yes Internet :Yes ps
To
1.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, E.V.K Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.1491 of 2022
15.10.2025