Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners initial thrust against his non-selection as a constable in Railway protection Force was a discrepancy which cropped in the English advertisement visa-vis in Hindi advertisement both published in the Employment News and Rojgar Samachar respectively. 3. In the Employment News it was categorically stated that special drive to fill up these posts were taken by the respondents authorities of three categories i.e. S.C. S.T. and O.B.C. However in Hindi version instead of "Ati Pichra Barg" "Atyant Pichra Barg" was published. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to E.B.C. category and by recruiting candidates of O.B.C. the authorities have violated their own advertisement. To clarify the position this Court directed the respondent Railways to file counter affidavit. The Railways in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that under the Central Act reservations are only provided for S.C. S.T. and O.B.C. people only. There is no provision of reservation of E.B.C. i.e. Extremely Backward Class. They further contend that Hindi version of the advertisement itself carries a clause that in case of any variation in the two advertisements i.e. English or Hindi version the English version will prevail. They further indicate that there was a mistake in the Hindi version to the extent that instead of Ati Pichra Barg" in the translation of the same. "Atyant Pichra Barg" was published. 5. It is not in dispute that appointment is being done by the Indian Railways and the Central rules or reservation shall apply only to them. Further their stand is that the recruitment was for S.C, S.T. & O.B.C. candidates and not for E.B.C. The petitioner main grievanceus that he has been discriminated as by selecting O.B.C. candidates the railways have violated their advertisement is totally misplaced. 6. The petitioner thereafter, based on the result and the marksheet which has been brought on record as Annexur C, to the counter affidavit, has another line of argument. He tried to demonstrate before this Court that the marks which has been given to him are less than the marks which he otherwise deserved, based on the advertisement which lists out detailed break up. 7. He tried to demonstrate before this Court that the marks which has been given to him are less than the marks which he otherwise deserved, based on the advertisement which lists out detailed break up. 7. This Court after perusing the records is again not willing to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioner because at page 32 of the counter affidavit the detailed break up of the marks which the petitioner has got in the viva voce test is 7.5. Perusal of page 31 would show that the petitioner has been given 7.5 marks in the viva voce test. Marks given to various candidates at page 32, also find their reflection at page 31 of the counter affidavit. When the Court confronted him with this situation he tried to change his stand again. He says that several heads which have been indicated at page 32 cannot constitute the basis on which the viva voce marks can be awarded. This is a desperate submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The procedure which has been adopted by the respondents in the viva voce test is not unique to the petitioner. The parameter which has been laid down by the authority to judge personality etc. of a candidate is the same in nature and the respondent authorities have not done anything unique with regard to the petitioner which can be said to be prejudicial to his interest. If all the selected candidates have been put together through the same parameters after judging the personality then there was no discrimination which was committed by the respondent authorities. 8. That being the position this Court is not inclined to go along with the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ application. 9. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.