JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, the second respondent herein to select the petitioner herein to the post of B.T. Teacher in Mathematics on the basis of the Land Acquisition priority certificate for appointment issued by the Special Tahsildar (ADW) Vandavasi, dated 06.02.2012 and consequently direct the fourth respondent herein to appoint the petitioner herein as B.T.Teacher in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service in any one of the Government High Schools in Tiruvannamalai District or elsewhere in the State notionally with effect from the date of issue of the certificate with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) 1. The Writ on hand has been filed to direct the second respondent to select the petitioner to the post of B.T.Teacher in Mathematics under Land Acquisition priority category and appoint him to the said post in the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Services. 2. The petitioner states that he passed B.Sc., (Mathematics) in the year 2003 and B.Ed., in the year 2007. The petitioner passed Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) during the year 2013, which is the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of B.T. Teacher. The petitioner states that he registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Thiruvannamalai during the year 2007. The petitioner belongs to Backward Class Community. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the process of selection for recruitment to the post of B.T. Teacher, pursuant to the notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board in the year 2014. The petitioner was not selected under the category of Land Loser, since the petitioner possessed the certificate. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered based on the priority category of land losers, since the priority belongs to the petitioner as the petitioner's family land was acquired for public purposes. The petitioner is in possession of the priority certificate and based on the said certificate, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. He was the only person falling under the land losers category and therefore, irrespective of the cut-off marks, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment to the post of B.T. Teacher. He was the only person falling under the land losers category and therefore, irrespective of the cut-off marks, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment to the post of B.T. Teacher. The learned counsel is of an opinion that the respondents have not applied the Rule of Reservation with reference to Rule 22 of the General Rules and the reservation of priority category is also not provided. Thus, the petitioner lost his opportunity for selection to the post of B.T. Teacher. 4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the period of limitation for claiming priority category cannot be the ground to reject the candidature of the petitioner. The Courts have granted relief in such circumstances to the land losers. There cannot be any discrimination in dealing with priority categories. The Courts have considered and held that there cannot be any discrimination while dealing with similarly placed cases and equal treatment should be given under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and when such priority category for appointment is granted with reference to the Government policy in other cases, the same benefit is to be extended for selection and appointment to the post of B.T.Teacher conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board. 5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:- (i) S.Dharanipathy/M.Lakshmi Devi Vs. Secertary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department and others reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 498. (ii) R.Nandakumar Vs. Commissioner and Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, and another reported in (2011) 1 MLJ 1218 . (iii) Pon Muthu Nadar and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department and others reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 786 . (iv) Union of India, rep. by the Chief Postmaster General and another Vs. S.Subramani and another reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 524 . 6. Relying on the above judgements, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in support of the grounds raised, the judgements cited supra stipulates that land losers category, which is a priority category, cannot be discriminated and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be selected. 7. S.Subramani and another reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 524 . 6. Relying on the above judgements, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in support of the grounds raised, the judgements cited supra stipulates that land losers category, which is a priority category, cannot be discriminated and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be selected. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent objected the said contentions by stating that the Government policy for priority appointment for land losers who lost their land on account of acquisition for public purposes, was granted only with reference to the appointments made through the District Employment Exchanges and not in respect of selection made by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The priority category Government Order was passed long back and after constitution of the Recruitment Board to conduct selection through open competitive process, Rule of Reservation is followed. However, the priority category of land losers was not included for reservation. The land losers priority category is considered only if the posts are filled up through District Employment Exchange. It is further contended that while sponsoring the candidate, the priority is to be taken into consideration, but not for selection or appointment. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.12.1976, regarding the priority to the land losers, is not adopted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was not considered. That apart, by accepting the terms and conditions in the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner participated in the selection process conducted during the year 2014. There is no such priority provided in the recruitment notification. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek any such priority after participating in the process of selection and thus, the relief sought for is to be rejected. 9. This Court considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the spirit of the original Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 28.12.1976 is to be considered. The Government Order reveals that order of priority is to be granted only for recruitments made through Employment Exchanges. Paragraph 2 of the Government Order unambiguously stipulates that "order of priority in respect of provision of employment assistance through Employment Exchanges shall be as indicated in the annexure to the Government Order." 11. The Government Order reveals that order of priority is to be granted only for recruitments made through Employment Exchanges. Paragraph 2 of the Government Order unambiguously stipulates that "order of priority in respect of provision of employment assistance through Employment Exchanges shall be as indicated in the annexure to the Government Order." 11. Perusal of the entire Government Order granting priority reveals that, the benefit of priority is conferred only in respect of the recruitment made through District Employment Exchange and not in respect of open competitive selection process conducted by various Recruitment Boards and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, etc. When the Government policy indicates that the priority is to be granted in respect of the recruitment made through Employment Exchanges and such a benefit has not been conferred in the recruitment notification, a candidate who participated in the selection process cannot turn around and claim priority which is otherwise contemplated in the recruitment notification itself. 12. The conditions stipulated in the recruitment notification and the instructions provided to the candidates are binding on the candidates. When no such reservation or priority has been contemplated in the recruitment notification and in the brochure, the candidate who participated in the selection cannot claim any other benefit which is not otherwise notified in the recruitment notification. The candidates are participating in the process of selection accepting the terms and conditions notified. Thus, such conditions are binding on the candidates and after participation, they cannot claim any other benefit which is not contemplated. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the process of selection pursuant to the recruitment notification. The Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 28.12.1976, provides that priority to the land losers are restricted only with reference to the recruitments made through District Employment Exchanges. That apart, the names of the priority candidates under the land losers category must be sponsored by following the employment registration seniority. The very purpose and object of the Government Order is to ensure that the priority is granted for sponsoring the names of the land losers for appointment to be made through District Employment Exchange. That exactly is the reason why such priority for land losers are not granted in respect of open competitive selection made through various Government Recruitments Boards and Commissions. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner admittedly scored 62.13%. That exactly is the reason why such priority for land losers are not granted in respect of open competitive selection made through various Government Recruitments Boards and Commissions. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner admittedly scored 62.13%. As per the selection list drawn, the cut-off mark of the last candidate selected in the Backward Class Community was 64.24% of the marks. Thus, the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration for selection and therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of the non-selection of the petitioner for appointment to the post of B.T.Teacher. 15. When there is no such priority provided for land losers category in the recruitment notification and further, the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration, as he scored lesser marks than that of the cut-off marks, there is no reason to consider the relief as such sought for in the Writ Petition. However, it is made clear that whenever the petitioner gets an opportunity based on his registration in the Employment Exchange, his case is to be considered with the Government Orders. 16. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.