Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

d) In the online application form itself, there is a specific column under the heading 'Additional Information' for providing information regarding any concession sought with regard to age or any other concession. This essentially indicates any benefit that is accorded to a candidate in terms of the priority afforded under 200 point roster. Indeed, the review https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner knew about it only too well. However, when the cut off marks of the candidates were announced, it was separately announced for priority and non-priority candidates. The priority in terms of 200 point roster was extended not just the candidates from 'ST' category, but across the board of all the candidates from other categories as well. In the list of selected candidates, one who is ranked '3' belongs to general category, but was given priority for inter-caste marriage. One ranked '4' is an SC candidate and she was given priority again for inter-caste marriage. One who ranked '12' belongs to 'BC' and she is given priority on a different head. It is in this turn, the 4th respondent was given priority under the head 'inter-caste marriage for ST candidate. Again, the candidate who is ranked '21' also finds a name in the list of priority candidates, but she is a MBC candidate. Inasmuch as there is only one seat in vertical reservation provided for SC candidates, the review petitioner could not be accommodated since in terms of 200 point roster that slet has gone to the 4th respondent. At any rate, the review petitioner did not seek any benefit under the horizontal reservation, but seek an appointment only under the vertical reservation.