JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent herein pertaining to the provisional List of selected candidates in the subject Business Administration [Sub.Code B34] for the recruitment of Assistant Professors Notified in its Advt.No.4/2010, dated 29.03.2010 and quash the same in so far as the same relates to the selection of 4th respondent herein under Open Category [GT] and direct the third respondent herein to award 6 marks to the petitioner for his additional qualification – M.Phil with SLET/NET instead of 5 marks already awarded and consequently, redraw the selection list for GT and Backward Class – General [BG] categories by placing the petitioner herein at S.No.62, reserved for BG [12th roster point reserved for BG] or in the alternate at S.No.47 [9th roster point reserved for BG] due to the increase of total marks of the petitioner to 30 from 29.) 1. The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records of the third respondent herein pertaining to the provisional List of selected candidates in the subject Business Administration [Sub.Code B34] for the recruitment of Assistant Professors Notified in its Advt.No.4/2010, dated 29.03.2010 and quash the same, in so far as the same relates to the selection of fourth respondent herein under Open Category [GT] and direct the third respondent herein to award 6 marks to the petitioner for his additional qualification – M.Phil with SLET/NET instead of 5 marks already awarded and consequently, redraw the selection list for GT and Backward Class – General [BG] categories by placing him at S.No.62, reserved for BG [12th roster point reserved for BG] or in the alternate at S.No.47 [9th roster point reserved for BG] due to the increase of his total marks to 30 from 29. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The third respondent vide Advertisement No.4/2010 dated 29.03.2010, has issued a notification, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 64 vacancies to the post of Assistant Professors in the subject – Business Administration [Subject Code: B 34], in response to which, the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Professor [Business Administration] in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Service. As per the prospectus issued by the third respondent, the two basic and essential qualifications to apply for the post notified are as follows: (i) All candidates except S.C and S.T should have passed a Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject with minimum of 55% marks and (ii) All candidates should have passed NET/SLET/SLST or an accredited test equivalent to UGC Norms in the relevant subject. 2.1. The petitioner belongs to BC Category and his educational qualifications are B.Com., M.B.A., & M.Phil. He has also passed SLET/NET. While Certificate Verification, the third respondent has awarded 29 marks to the petitioner. Actually, the third respondent ought to have awarded 6 marks to the petitioner since he has completed M.Phil., degree and also, passed SLET/NET, but, the third respondent has awarded only 5 marks to the petitioner as if he does not have M.Phil., degree. 2.2. On 17.02.2011, the third respondent published the provisional list of selected candidates, however, the said list was not communicated to the petitioner nor published in the newspaper. The third respondent has selected 10 candidates under GT Category after reserving 3 GT vacancies for Special Category and 12 candidates under BC [General] Category. The fourth respondent who belongs to Forward Community is not entitled to be selected under GT Category, but, the third respondent has illegally selected him under GT Category. Though the petitioner was eligible to compete for the 10 vacancies reserved under GT Category and also, 12 vacancies reserved under BC [General] Category, he was not selected since the third respondent has not properly followed the merit ranking to fill up the vacancies under GT Category as well as BC Category. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, for the reliefs stated supra. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent ought to have awarded 6 marks to the petitioner instead of 5 marks since he has completed M.Phil., degree and also, passed SLET/NET as mentioned in the prospectus issued by the third respondent. If the petitioner was given 6 marks, his total marks would have increased to 30 from 29 and he would have been placed at S.No.47 [9th roster point reserved for BG]. 3.1. If the petitioner was given 6 marks, his total marks would have increased to 30 from 29 and he would have been placed at S.No.47 [9th roster point reserved for BG]. 3.1. The learned counsel also submitted that the fourth respondent belongs to Forward Community and therefore, he is not within the zone of consideration of GT Category, despite which, he was selected by the third respondent. If the fourth respondent has not been selected under GT Category, one candidate among the 12 candidates who were selected under BC Category would have moved to GT Category and as a result of which, the petitioner would have been selected and placed at S.No.62 [12th roster point reserved for BG]. The provisional selection list which was published by the third respondent itself clearly shows that how the third respondent has totally deviated from the merit ranking while selecting the candidates for vacancies under GT Category and BC Category. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the provisional selection list published by the third respondent may be quashed since the same is arbitrary and illegal. 3.2. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of K.R.Shanthi vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and Anr. reported in (2012) 7 MLJ 241 . 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that at the time of Certificate Verification, the petitioner was awarded 29 marks, the break-up details of which is as follows: a) For Post Graduate and SLET/NET - 5 marks b) Teaching Experience - 15 marks c) Interview - 9 marks ----------------------- Total – 29 marks ----------------------- 4.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's educational qualification is B.Com., (Commerce), M.B.A., (Business Administration), M.Phil., (Commerce) & SLET (Management). Since the petitioner has acquired M.Phil., degree in Commerce, which is not a relevant subject for the post called for by the third respondent in Advertisement No.4/2010 dated 29.03.2010, he was awarded 5 marks for M.B.A., with SLET/NET alone, as per G.O.Ms.No.412, Higher Education Department, dated 07.12.2009 and no mark was awarded to him for his M.Phil., qualification. The recruitment of Assistant Professors – 2010 was conducted as per the norms and rules of procedure which was in force and the provisional selection list drawn by the third respondent was also in order. 4.2. The recruitment of Assistant Professors – 2010 was conducted as per the norms and rules of procedure which was in force and the provisional selection list drawn by the third respondent was also in order. 4.2. The learned counsel also submitted that the cut off marks obtained by the last candidate viz., Mr.Murugesan who was selected under Backward Class (General) communal turn is 29 marks whose date of birth is 20.10.1962. Even though the petitioner has secured the very same cut off marks, he could not be considered for selection because he was junior to said Murugesan. The date of birth of the petitioner is 31.07.1964. That apart, as far as recruitment of Assistant Professors for the year 2010 by the third respondent Board is concerned, the selection was finalized. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. It can be seen from the records that pursuant to the Advertisement No.4/2010 dated 29.03.2010 issued by the third respondent, the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Business Administration and he was called for Certificate Verification on 08.06.2010. In Certificate Verification, the petitioner was awarded 29 marks. Since the petitioner has pursued M.Phil., degree in Commerce, which is not a relevant subject for the post called for, he was not awarded any marks for his M.Phil., qualification and he was awarded 5 marks for his other qualifications viz., M.B.A., & SLET/NET. It is also seen that the third respondent Board has followed a same yardstick for the selection of candidates for all subjects for the recruitment of Assistant Professor in the year 2010. The provisional selection list published by the third respondent Board was in order since the candidates were selected as per the communal roster as well as G.O.Ms.No.65 P & AR Department, dated 27.05.2009. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been awarded 6 marks in Certificate Verification, for having additional qualifications M.Phil., & SLET, but, he was awarded only 5 marks by the third respondent and the fourth respondent who is not within the zone of consideration for GT Category, was selected by the respondent. 8. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been awarded 6 marks in Certificate Verification, for having additional qualifications M.Phil., & SLET, but, he was awarded only 5 marks by the third respondent and the fourth respondent who is not within the zone of consideration for GT Category, was selected by the respondent. 8. From a perusal of the provisional selection list published by the third respondent, it is clearly evident that the total marks secured by the petitioner in Certificate Verification is 29 marks, whereas, the total marks secured by the fourth respondent is 31 marks. So, the third respondent has selected the fourth respondent. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, though the petitioner and the last candidate viz., Murugesan who was selected under BC Category have secured same cut off marks in Certificate Verification, the petitioner could not be considered for selection, because, age wise, he is junior to said Murugesan. 10. It is to be noted that the recruitment conducted by the third respondent is of the year 2010 and the petitioner was 46 years old at the time of filing of this writ petition and now, he is 58 years old. Due to efflux of time, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner that the third respondent has not conducted the recruitment properly and not followed the merit ranking while preparing the provisional selection list. 11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.