Judgment 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 14.01.2008 and the Government Letter No.10558/F2/2008-3, Higher Education Department, dated 10.07.2008, permitted the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board to recruit Lecturers in the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges and College of Education for 1195 vacancies, in various subjects. As per the Government orders, the posts will be filled up on the basis of weightage marks to be awarded for (a)teaching experience; (b)higher educational qualifications in the subject; (c) books/articles published; and (d) marks to be awarded in the interview. 2. The recruitment involves reservation, including 30% for women, 1% for physically challenged, 1% for visually impaired and 1% for Hearing impaired. Accordingly, the Teachers Recruitment Board issued a Notification. For the post of Lecturer in Political Science, as many as five vacancies were notified, out of which, two were reserved for General Turn (Open Quota), one for Backward Class, one for Most Backward Class and one for Scheduled Caste. Out of the two vacancies earmarked for Open Quota (General Turn), one was earmarked for general and the other for women. So far as the special categories, within the posts shown as above, for the Subject Political Science, two vacancies were earmarked for orthopedically challenged. No vacancy was earmarked for visually impaired and hearing impaired. 3. The petitioner made an application in pursuance of the Notification for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The Teachers Recruitment Board issued a Memo in No.2843/A6/2008, dated 23.02.2009, calling upon the petitioner to appear for certificate verification, scheduled on 06.03.2009. The petitioner participated in the same. After certificate verification, it emerged that the petitioner was the highest scorer among the candidates who had appeared for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. He had secured 36 marks. But, still, he was not selected. Only from the details published in the Official Website of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner came to know that he was not provisionally selected. Though he was the top scorer, the reason for his non-selection was not disclosed and therefore the petitioner filed the present writ petition, as early as on 15.07.2009, seeking a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as Lecturer in Political Science with all consequential benefits. 4. Notice of Motion, returnable in four weeks, was ordered by this Court on 17.07.2009. 4. Notice of Motion, returnable in four weeks, was ordered by this Court on 17.07.2009. While ordering Notice of Motion, this Court issued a direction to the respondents that any selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science (General Turn) is subject to the result of the writ petition. Though the writ petition came-up for hearing after 03.01.2014 on few occasions, the respondents did not choose to file counter. Before me, this matter came up for hearing on 21.07.2014, 30.07.2014 and 04.08.2014. 5. When the matter was heard on 04.08.2014, on instructions from the Member-Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as against the five vacancies notified, four have been filled-up. He further clarified that as against the single vacancy for Scheduled Caste (General), one Mr.N.Veemaraja, who had secured 22 marks, was appointed. As against the lone vacancy for Most Backward Class (General), one Mr.P.Dhanuskodi, who had secured 30 marks, was appointed and as against the lone vacancy for Backward Class (General), one Ms.M.Deepa, who had secured 15 marks, was appointed. Out of the two vacancies earmarked for Open Quota (1-General and 1-women), one Mr.M.Vivekanandan, who had secured 5 marks, was appointed against one vacancy meant for women. The other vacancy for Open Quota (General) was not filled-up. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the said vacancy was earmarked for hearing impaired person and since no candidate with hearing impaired was available, the said vacancy was not filled-up. When this Court raised a query as to how the vacancy earmarked for General Turn (Women) was filed-up with one Mr.M.Vivekanandan, the learned Special Government Pleader had no instruction on the said question. When it was also pointed out to the learned Special Government Pleader that as per the Employment Notification, there was no vacancy earmarked for hearing impaired candidates under the General Turn, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that it was a mistake in the Notification. He prayed for an adjournment to get fuller instruction on the above said anomaly. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 05.08.2014. 6. He prayed for an adjournment to get fuller instruction on the above said anomaly. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 05.08.2014. 6. When this writ petition was taken-up for hearing on 05.08.2014, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as against the unfilled lone vacancy that was earmarked for Open Quota (General Turn), the Teachers Recruitment Board has issued proceedings in Rc.No.902/A6/Legal Cell/2014, dated 05.08.2014, selecting the petitioner for appointment as Lecturer in Political Science and the select list has also been forwarded to the Director of Collegiate Education for issuance of appointment and placement orders. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that Mr.M.Vivekanandan was appointed as against the vacancy earmarked for General Turn (Women,) because there was no woman candidate available. I find it difficult to be persuaded by the said explanation. If it is true that there was no woman candidate available to fill-up the vacancy earmarked for General Turn (Women) and so a male candidate could be accommodated as against that vacancy, quite naturally the petitioner, who happened to be the top scorer, should have been appointed. It is not explained to the Court that as against the General Turn (Women Quota), for want of a woman candidate, how Mr.M.Vivekanandan, who had scored only 5 marks and belong to Backward Class, could be appointed when the petitioner, who had scored 36 marks and also belonging to Backward Class was not appointed. Further, Mr.D.Dhanuskodi had scored 30 marks and he belongs to Most Backward Class. It is not explained to the Court as to why he has not been selected as against the General Turn (Women Quota), when the Teachers Recruitment Board had selected Mr.M.Vivekanandan, who had scored only 5 marks and who belongs to Backward Class. Similarly, Ms.M.Deepa is a Backward Class Candidate and she could have been appointed as against the General Turn (Women) vacancy. If the stand of the Teachers Recruitment Board that the General Turn Vacancy, which was supposed to have been earmarked for Hearing Impaired was kept vacant because there was no Hearing Impaired candidate available, it is not explained to the Court as to why Mr.M.Vivekanandan was appointed as against the vacancy earmarked for the woman, without leaving it vacant on the ground that there was no women candidate available. These vital questions remain unanswered by the Teachers Recruitment Board. These vital questions remain unanswered by the Teachers Recruitment Board. Though it is stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that out of two vacancies for General Turn, one was earmarked for hearing impaired, the Employment Notification does not say so. Therefore, I hold that it is only an attempt to improve the case of the Teachers Recruitment Board. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that of course the petitioner has been issued with a selection order, but still he has to wait for appointment order from the Director of Collegiate Education. He would submit that because of the above acts of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner has lost his seniority, by five years and thus he has lost his salary also for five years. Apart from that, he has been made to suffer all these five years and he has been put to lot of mental agony, the learned counsel contended. He would further submit that therefore there should be a direction issued to the Director of Collegiate Education to issue appointment and placement orders, forthwith, pursuant to the orders of the Teachers Recruitment Board, dated 05.08.2014. 9. In my considered opinion, in a very casual manner, without assigning any valid reason, the petitioner, though was the top scorer and who should have been selected and appointed in preference to another candidate, was not selected and appointed and as a result, he has to suffer monetary loss, service benefits as well as seniority, besides mental agony. Approximately, the petitioner has lost Rs.15,00,000/- towards salary. Though the petitioner must be happy that today atleast he has won the legal battle by getting appointment order, the loss caused to him cannot be compensated in full. In my considered opinion, in these circumstances, atleast the cost of the litigation should be ordered to be paid by the Teachers Recruitment Board. I am of the view that payment of Rs.10,000/-, as costs, will meet the ends of justice. 10. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. (i) The 1st respondent shall ensure that the Director of Collegiate Education issues appointment and posting orders to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in pursuance of the proceedings of the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, in Rc.No.902/A6/Legal Cell/2014, dated 05.08.2014. (i) The 1st respondent shall ensure that the Director of Collegiate Education issues appointment and posting orders to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in pursuance of the proceedings of the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, in Rc.No.902/A6/Legal Cell/2014, dated 05.08.2014. (ii) The 2nd respondent, the Teachers Recruitment Board, shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Registry is directed to list this matter again on 05.09.2014, for reporting compliance.