Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to publish mode of selection made by the 3rd Respondent for the year 2005-2006 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and select the Petitioner for the above post. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: (i) To fill up 300 vacancies of Assistant Engineer/Electrical and 25 vacancies of Assistant Engineer/Mechanical. The Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai was addressed to sponsor qualified candidates. The Executive Employment Office has sponsored about 6009 candidates as per existing guidelines. (ii) Petitioner belongs to a Christian Nadar of Backward class and possess a B.E., degree of Mechanical Engineering with 61.69% marks and completed the course in the month of November 1989. After his graduation Petitioner underwent apprentice training with the TNEB from 112. 1992 to 112. 1993. After the apprentice training Petitioner worked as Trainee Engineer in a private company and the Petitioner registered himself with the employment exchange in 1990. (iii) As per notification Petitioner was called for the interview and the Petitioner has attended the interview on 16.09.2005. With his 61.69% of marks in the qualifying BE degree examination the Petitioner secured 59.44 marks. The cut-off makrs for general-men in the Backward class category is 736. since the Petitioner has only 59.44% marks the Petitioner has not reached the zone of selection. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in order to accommodate influential candidates and the known candidates the Respondents have not published in the selection list mode of selection of marks. According to the Petitioner though he approached the 3rd Respondent on several occasion he was not informed about the mode of selection and the marks secured by the selected candidates. 4. The Respondents have filed counter stating that the selection was made as per the regulations of TNEB and the G.Os. It is further averred that the Petitioner has secured only 59.44 marks as against the cut-off marks 73.36 for the general-men in the Backward class community and therefore the Petitioner was not selected. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.S.Parthasarathy, has contended that while publishing the selection list the details of selection following the rules of reservation were not indicated. Learned counsel further submitted that the publication of selection list with all particulars would vitiate the selection process. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.S.Parthasarathy, has contended that while publishing the selection list the details of selection following the rules of reservation were not indicated. Learned counsel further submitted that the publication of selection list with all particulars would vitiate the selection process. 6. Submitting that the selection was done as per service regulations of TNEB. MR.N.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for TNEB, has contended that the Petitioner having participated in the selection process and having been unsuccessful, the Petitioner cannot question the method of selection. The learned counsel further submitted that since the Petitioner has not secured the minimum cut-off marks for the general-men in the Backward class category the Petitioner was not selected and there are no merits in the grounds of challenge. 7. According to the Board the selection committee consisting of Regional Chief Engineer and two Superintending Engineers. In the selection of candidates to award marks following guide lines was followed. i) Marks obtained in the BE/AMIE examination to be worked out for:- : 85% ii) For viva-voce interview in Technical subjects and Managerial skills:- :15% According to the Respondents mode/method of recruitment was as per Service Regulations 89 (d)(i) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After following the above guidelines the selection committee awarded consolidated marks for each candidates. The women turn for women was given to women so as to maintain the 30% reservation. The selection was finalised as per the communal rotation order in G.O.Ms.No.105, P&AR (S), dated 20.06.2000 as made applicable in Boards Service in (Per.) B.P. (FB) No.26, (Administrative Branch), dated 010. 2001. 8. Petitioner belongs to Christian nadar-Backward class the cut-off marks in respect of candidates who belongs to Backward class community is as follows: GENERAL WOMEN 30% RESERVATION WOMEN MEN Qualifying examination marks (i) for 100% 75.13 68. 91 69. 84 (ii) for 85% 63.86 + 58.57 + 59.36 + For viva-voce Interview 15% 10.00 14.00 14.00 TOTAL 73.86 72.57 73.36 As against the cut-off marks 73.36% marks Petitioner has secured 59.44% marks and the Petitioner has not reached the zone of selection. 9. Of course as contended by the Petitioner, the selection list does not indicated the cutoff mark and the communal rotation. To ensure transparency and accountability, it is desirable that the selection list contains the cut-off marks secured by each candidates and also the communal rotation. 9. Of course as contended by the Petitioner, the selection list does not indicated the cutoff mark and the communal rotation. To ensure transparency and accountability, it is desirable that the selection list contains the cut-off marks secured by each candidates and also the communal rotation. However non indication of the same in the selection list would not vitiate the selection process. This is all the more so, when the Petitioner having secured only 59.44 marks and has not reached the zone of selection. Having participated in the selection process and having been unsuccessful, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge the selection process. 10. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. " It is observed that in the case of future recruitment while publishing the selection list the TNEB shall ensure publication of cut-off marks, marks secured by each candidate and also indicate communal rotation and women reservation. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.