JUDGMENT : Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner in any one of the Preferential Category which she submitted for both OT and Non-OT posts in respect of the selection made by the Service Commission in the Combined Subordinate Service Examination - 1, 2008. 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner in any one of the Preferential Category which she submitted for both OT and Non-OT posts in respect of the selection made by the Service Commission in the Combined Subordinate Service Examination - 1, 2008. 2. The petitioner was one of the candidates who participated in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the Combined Subordinate Service Examination - 1 of the year 2008. 3. The petitioner belongs to MBC and according to the petitioner, she performed well in the written examination, despite the same, since she was not called for oral test, at that juncture, she filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4. In this Writ Petition, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the oral test and the petitioner, according to her, has performed well in the oral test. Therefore, she should have been selected in any one of the posts covered under the said Combined Subordinate Service Examination, i.e., Group- IV. Since the petitioner was not selected and the result of the petitioner was not declared by the Service Commission, the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court, has filed this Writ Petition. 5. Reiterating the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court and he would submit that, even the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off marks in respect of the communal category has not been disclosed and therefore, why the petitioner was not selected and the reasons for such non-selection have not been made known to the petitioner, he contended. 6. However, Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Service Commission would submit that, the selection process is consisting of two stages, one is written test followed by oral rest. For written test, totally 300 marks would be awarded. 6. However, Mr.N.Balamuralikrishnan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Service Commission would submit that, the selection process is consisting of two stages, one is written test followed by oral rest. For written test, totally 300 marks would be awarded. The petitioner participated in the written test, she was able to get only 241.5 marks, whereas, cut-off marks for the last candidate in the communal category, where the petitioner belongs, for calling them to oral test was for MBC/DC(General)-252, MBC/DC(Women)-247.50 and when the petitioner admittedly got 241.5 out of 300, she should not be called for interview, that is why, she was not called for interview. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, she was called for oral test, where also she participated and after the oral test, if we take the combined marks of 241.5 and oral test marks, out of 340 she was able to get 268.5marks. Whereas the cut-off marks was 279 and 274.50 for MBC/DC General and Women respectively. 7. However, the said 241.5 marks obtained by the petitioner if it is taken into account, even for becoming eligible to be called for oral test itself, the petitioner is not eligible. Therefore, the petitioner was not coming nearer to the zone of consideration and hence, she was not called for interview. Therefore, the question of selecting the petitioner not arises. 8. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the Service Commission has produced the following cut-off marks, which is relevant to the present issue: DETAILS OF MARKS OBTAINED BY THE LAST CADIDATE SELECTED IN MBC CATEGORY RELATING TO ORAL TEST POSTS INCUDED IN COMBINED SUBORDINATE SERVICE EXAMINATION - 1, 2008. MBC/DC GENERAL 279 31.05.1979 MBC/DC WOMEN 274.5 05.02.1979 MBC/DC WOMEN ORTHO 268.5 06.10.1981 MBC/DC GENERAL BLIND 247.5 27.05.1982 MBC/DC GENERAL EX-SER 244.5 30.03.1964 MBC/DC GENERAL DEAF 228 03.03.1976 MBC/DC WOMEN DW 145.5 13.03.1964 DETAILS OF MARKS OBTAINED BY THE LAST CADIDATE SELECTED IN MBC CATEGORY RELATING TO NON-OT POSTS INCUDED IN COMBINED SUBORDINATE SERVICE EXAMINATION - 1, 2008. MBC/DC GENERAL 252 22.04.1997 MBC/DC WOMEN 247.5 25.07.1976 MBC/DC DW 247.5 10.05.1979 MBC/DC G-EX-SER 216.5 07.03.1971 MBC/DC G-PH-DEAF 196.5 06.05.1986 10. MBC/DC GENERAL 252 22.04.1997 MBC/DC WOMEN 247.5 25.07.1976 MBC/DC DW 247.5 10.05.1979 MBC/DC G-EX-SER 216.5 07.03.1971 MBC/DC G-PH-DEAF 196.5 06.05.1986 10. On perusal of the same, it would disclose that, the cut-off marks for the relevant category i.e., MBC-General and MBC-Women respectively before interview was 252 and 247.50 and after interview it was 279.00 and 274.50, whereas, the marks obtained by the petitioner was only 241.5 out of 300. 11. When that being so, the petitioner has not come to the zone of consideration even for calling to oral test. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was permitted to participate in the oral test pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, no right can be conferred on her, as the candidates who got higher marks than the petitioner have not been called for oral test. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any benefits out of such oral test as her marks obtained in written examination was not equal to the cut-off marks in respect of communal category. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered for selection on merits. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.