and the first respondent selected six candidates in M.B.C. Category on merit basis including the third respondent, who according to the first respondent, was selected under priority category. Since the petitioner secured only 56.23 marks, it is contended that the selection of the third respondent who secured 59.55 marks and the selection of fourth respondent who secured 59.28 marks cannot be questioned by the petitioner. However, it was reiterated in the counter affidavit that the third respondent was selected under priority category (physically challenged). However, in the additional counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the petitioner's eligibility to apply for the post under the priority quota under freedom fighters category was specifically disputed. Stating that the petitioner is only a grand-son of Late Thiru.Manickam Pillai, a freedom fighter and that a grand-son is not entitled to apply for the post under priority category, the first respondent seriously opposed the writ petition. The first respondent also relied upon certain decisions of this Court wherein it has been held that grand-son of freedom fighters are not eligible under the special category/priority quota. Since the petitioner has no legal right to seek appointment under priority category of freedom fighters, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition earlier in W.P.(MD)No.782 of 2011 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is stated that a second Writ Petition is not maintainable for the same cause of action questioning the selection process. Since six Most Backward Class posts were filled up with meritorious persons who have secured more marks than the petitioner, it is contended by the respondents that the Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed on merits.
