S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to consider the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Ex-servicemen category of her father .
2. The writ petitioner is the dependent of Ex-servicemen. She participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher , knowing the fact that quota/priority had not been provided to the dependents of Ex-servicemen. In spite of that the writ petitioner participated in the process of selection and was unsuccessful.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the writ petitioner was not within the zone of consideration and therefore, she filed a Writ Petition to avail quota for the dependents of the Ex-servicemen, knowing the fact that the priority was not provided under the recruitment conditions.
4. An unsuccessful candidate, after partic ipating in the process of selection, cannot complain that Ex-servicemen quota must be provided to the dependants.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that priority quota is the discretion of the employer , the Government has to fix priority quota, considering the job profile, nature of the duties and responsibilities and other criterias. Thus, the priority quota cannot be compared with rule of reservation under the Constitution. Priorities are provided to various categories, including destitute widow , Tamil scholars, freedom fighters etc. Priority categories are provided under various heads by the Government, considering the job profile. Therefore, such a priority quota can never be claimed as a matter of right by the persons, who are aspiring to secure public employment.
6. Priority is to be decided by the Government and the same should not exceed the permissible limits. In the event of providing large scale priority quota, then constitutional rights of the meritorious candidates to secure public employment are infringed. Undoubtedly , the rule of reservation is implemented to the extent of 69% in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, adding further rule of reservation under the head of priority will defeat the very equality clause enunciated in the Constitution.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also made clear that reservation should be framed in such manner without affecting the equal opportunity for public employment. Thus, the priority quota cannot be claimed as a matter of legal-right and wherever , such priority quota is notified by the Government in the recruitment notification, then alone the eligible candidates are entitled to avail quota and not otherwise. This apart, the writ petitioner participated in the process of selection of the year 2013-14 and at this length of time, the relief of granting such priority quota to the dependants of Ex-servicemen, which was not contemplate d in the recruitment conditions during the relevant point of time, cannot be considered for the purpose of appointing the writ petitioner .
8. Accordingly , this W rit Petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs.