Judgment :- 1. This Writ petition is filed to Call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the third respondent in his proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.4335/A5/2010 and quash the same as illegal in sofar as the petitioner alone and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all the monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner belongs to Hindu “Parayar Community”. She has completed B.Sc., B.Ed., and registered in the District Employment Office, Virudhunagar District. The State Government announced to fill up the vacancies of Graduate Assistants for Schools, on the basis of State seniority in the Employment Exchange registration for the year year 2009-2010. The petitioner was sponsored by Employment Exchange. The petitioner was called for certificate verification. She attended for certificate verification and produced all the certificates. At that time the petitioner given community certificates, Identity Card of her husband and other relevant certificates. The petitioner requested the first respondent to consider the petitioner under the category of Scheduled Caste Quota. The first respondent by order dated 26.07.2010, in Rc.No.2555/B2/2010 stated that the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Graduate Assistant, on the basis of Employment Registration State seniority sponsored by the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai. 3. The petitioner was participated in the counselling conducted by second respondent on 08.09.2010. She has produced all the certificates to the second respondent which she had produced before the first respondent. The second respondent by order dated 08.09.2010 in Na.Ka.No.26555/D1/2010 permitted the petitioner to work in Panchayat Union Middle School, Kodikulam. The third respondent by proceedings dated 15.09.2010 appointed the petitioner as Graduate Assistants in Physics in Panchayat Union Middle School, Kodikkulam. After five months, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2011, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled, on the ground that by mistake the petitioner was appointed in priority quota. Challenging the said order the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not registered her name in the Employment Exchange on priority quota. She mislead the first respondent that she is entitled for appointment of priority quota of Ex-serviceman. On that priority quota the petitioner was selected and appointed, when the mistake was found out the appointment of petitioner was cancelled. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not registered her name in the Employment Exchange on priority quota. She mislead the first respondent that she is entitled for appointment of priority quota of Ex-serviceman. On that priority quota the petitioner was selected and appointed, when the mistake was found out the appointment of petitioner was cancelled. The impugned order of cancellation is valid and legal and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for parties. 6. I have carefully perused the materials on record and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is seen from the pleadings that the petitioner did not register her name on priority basis. She was not sponsored by Employment Exchange on priority basis. She was sponsored only according to the seniority in Employment Exchange registration. The Juniors of petitioner were appointed based on their registration date in the Employment Exchange. One K. Geetha was appointed and her appointment was also cancelled by the same impugned order. She filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.2251 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 04.08.2012 allowed the said Writ Petition and quashed the order of cancellation of appointment, in so far as K. Geetha is concerned. The relevant Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the above said Writ Petition reads as follows:- “8. In my considered opinion, the action taken by the first respondent cannot be appreciated. The priority to be given to certain categories, cannot be treated as a reservation, either horizontal or vertical. When two people are equally placed, the one who falls within the priority category will be selected. In the case on hand, though the petitioner was not sponsored under the priority category and though she was sponsored only under the general category at the time of certificate verification, she produced certificates showing that she is entitled for priority as Ex-serviceman. This was rightly considered and the petitioner was selected and appointed. But, the cancellation order will only reflect that the Teachers Recruitment Board has treated the priority as a reservation, which in my considered opinion is not correct. At any rate, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be stated to be illegal or erroneous and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. But, the cancellation order will only reflect that the Teachers Recruitment Board has treated the priority as a reservation, which in my considered opinion is not correct. At any rate, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be stated to be illegal or erroneous and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, insofar as the petitioner alone is concerned, is set aside. It is brought to the my notice that the petitioner has been serving all along on account of an interim order passed by this Court. It is directed that the service of the petitioner during the interregnum period shall be regularized. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 8. In view of the above, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.