JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner E.Vijayaraj has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration. 2. It is stated that, while allotting the marks to the petitioner instead of assigning 2 marks for the teaching experience, the respondents have wrongly assigned 1 mark though the petitioner was entitled to receive 2 marks. Similarly inasmuch as the petitioner registered his name in the Employment Exchange on 13.8.2007, as on the date of publication of the results i.e., 6.10.2010, he waited for about three years and two months, for which, he is entitled to 2 marks, but, he was awarded only one mark. Therefore, had the respondents awarded 2 marks for teaching experience and 2 marks for the weightage under Employment Exchange seniority, the petitioner would have been considered for selection. On the contrary, he was only awarded one mark under each Head and pointing out the same, Mr.Margabandhu the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unjustly denied the chance of getting selected in the selection process conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Block Resource Teacher Educator(BRTE). 3. This contention was fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents saying that the petitioner is entitled to receive 2 marks for Teaching experience and another 2 marks for weightage in the employment office, but there was a typing mistake in page No.14 showing that the petitioner was allotted only 1 mark for teaching experience. In fact the petitioner was rightly allotted 2 marks for teaching experience and another 2 marks for weightage towards the employment exchange seniority. 4. It is seen that even though the petitioner has secured 109 marks which falls within the cut-off mark under the G.T.turn, he could not be selected for the reason that 66 candidates similarly placed with that of the petitioner also acquired 109 marks and in such a situation, the seniormost candidate with Date of Birth as 10.7.90 came to be selected as last candidate for the Mathematics subject. Unfortunately, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 05.06.1986 and therefore, as he was not the seniormost based on Date of Birth, he could not be selected. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Unfortunately, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 05.06.1986 and therefore, as he was not the seniormost based on Date of Birth, he could not be selected. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/2010 is closed.