Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the provisional selection list dated 08.09.2009 in respect of respondents 4 and 5 and after quashing the same, consequentially directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II under Backward Community quota in pursuant to the Notification dated 18.04.2007. 2. The respondents 2 and 3 by the Notification No.107 dated 18.04.2007 invited applications from the prospective candidates for filling up 49 vacancies in the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in the Tamilnadu Transport Subordinate Service, in the year 2001-2006. The selection to the post was made to successive stages, namely, written examination and oral test. The written examination was conducted on 29.07.2007 and the oral test was conducted on 15.07.2009. 3. The qualification as per the Notification for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II is as follows: "B. Education Qualification: Candidates should possess the following or equivalent or higher qualification on the date of this notification viz., 18.04.2007. i) Minimum general education qualification as defined in paragraph commissions instruction to the candidate and ii) Diploma in Auto mobile engineering (3 year course or Diploma Mechanical Engineering (3 years Course) awarded by the State Board of technical education and training, Tamil Nadu. AND iii) Experience of having worked for a period of not less than 1 year both on vehicle fitted with petrol engines and vehicles fitted with diesel engines and a full time basis in a automobile workshop which under takes repairs of light motor vehicle heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicle. AND iv) Must hold a driving license authorizing him to drive motor cycle. Heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. AND v) Must have experience in driving heavy transport vehicle for a period of not less than 6 months. Provided that other things being equal preference shall be given to those who possess post diploma in automobile engineering awarded by the state board of technical education and training, Tamil Nadu, (Some more details regarding the qualification have been given in paragraph 9 of the commissions instruction etc to the candidate)." .4. Admittedly, as seen from the records, the respondents 4 and 5 obtained higher marks in the written examination than that of the petitioner. Admittedly, as seen from the records, the respondents 4 and 5 obtained higher marks in the written examination than that of the petitioner. The said respondents had the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner had the higher qualification than the respondents 4 and 5. However, while granting marks in the interview conducted by way of oral test, the petitioners higher qualification has been .taken into consideration and additional marks have been allotted to the petitioner. The fourth respondent was granted 30 marks and the fifth respondent has been given 18 marks in the oral test. The petitioner has been granted 30 marks by adding marks for his higher qualification. This has been done by taking into consideration the proviso contained under Clause 5(B) of the Notification. Thereafter, by adopting the Subsidiary Rules, by which, when two or more candidates securing the same marks, the candidate senior in age may be placed above in the merit list, the respondents 4 and 5 have been included in the provisional selected list, over and above the petitioner and one another candidate. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when marks obtained by the respective candidates are similar, as per the proviso contained under Clause 5(B) of the Notification, the petitioner ought to have been given the preference as against the respondents 4 and 5. The learned senior counsel also submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the marks given to the petitioner in the oral test includes the preferential mark and therefore, the order impugned will have to be set aside and consequently the petitioner will have to be given the posting. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 based upon the counter affidavit filed submitted that the petitioner has been given 30 marks by taking into consideration the additional marks as per Clause 5(B) of the Notification. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained lesser marks than the respondents 4 and 5 on merits excluding the additional marks awarded. The respondents 4 and 5 are seniors to the petitioner in age and hence, they have been selected. Therefore, no interference needs to be called for. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained lesser marks than the respondents 4 and 5 on merits excluding the additional marks awarded. The respondents 4 and 5 are seniors to the petitioner in age and hence, they have been selected. Therefore, no interference needs to be called for. The learned senior counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submitted that inasmuch as the reserve list based upon which the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition itself has got lapsed, the petitioner has got no locus standi to file this writ petition. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the respondents 4 and 5 in the written examination. A perusal of the additional counter affidavit would show that the petitioner has obtained 30 marks in the interview. However, this was done by taking into consideration Clause 5(B) of the Notification by adding additional marks. Therefore in view of the same, the petitioner was given the same total marks as that of the respondents 4 and 5. Even though this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 is not correct, considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 8. The words "other things being equal" as mentioned in Clause 5(B) of the Notification would exemplify the position that the question of preference would come only after the completion of the assessment of the candidates inclusive of both written and oral test. Such an assessment would only pertain to the performance of the candidates in pursuant to the written examination conducted and the subsequent oral test. 9. The respondents 2 and 3, in the opinion of this Court, has misconstrued the proviso in Clause 5(B) of the Notification, as it ought to have been pressed into service only for the candidates who have obtained equal marks both in the written examination and in the oral test. When the marks are same after adding the marks obtained in both written examination and oral interview, then only the question of preference would come. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 is not in consonance with the proviso contained under Clause 5(B) of the Notification issued. 10. When the marks are same after adding the marks obtained in both written examination and oral interview, then only the question of preference would come. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 is not in consonance with the proviso contained under Clause 5(B) of the Notification issued. 10. Be that as it may, the facts would clearly reveal that the petitioner has obtained 30 marks in the oral test, by the inclusion of the marks given, by taking into consideration of the proviso contained under Clause 5(B) of the Notification. In other words, had those marks not been added, the petitioner would not have been in the zone of consideration at all. Not only the petitioner, but also the candidates who are similarly placed like that of the petitioner and who have higher qualification, were also given the added marks and without that as a factual position the petitioner would not be in the zone of consideration at all. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the wrong procedure adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 and thereafter contend that once again the proviso to paragraph 5(B) of the Notification will have to be applied to his case. 11. As discussed above, the facts would reveal that the petitioner would have obtained lesser marks than the respondents 4 and 5, but for the additional marks given to him as a preferential candidate by the wrong application of proviso to Clause 5(B) of the Notification. Admittedly, the respondents 4 and 5 are not given any mark under the proviso to Clause 5(B) of the Notification and the marks secured by them are purely based upon merits. Hence, this Court is of the view that when the respondents 4 and 5 have farred better and secured higher marks, the petitioner cannot have any locus standi to maintain this writ petition, based upon a wrong method adopted by the respondents 2 and 3, by which he was given more marks by treating him as a preferential candidate. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.