Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. SU. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.S. Rajmohan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The question relates to the filling up of vacancy for Chargeman Grade II in terms of the SRO – 13E dated 5. 1989 / SRO – 191 dated 211. 1994 / SRO -66 dated 25. 2003 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. 3. Para 2(x) of the proceedings of the Deputy General Manager/BSR For O.I.T.C. Dated 16. 2007, which specified the norms, was as follows:- "The minimum pass marks in each individual subject shall be 35% while the minimum qualifying marks in aggregate shall be 45%. Candidates who qualify in the written examination will be listed in the order of merit. For SC/ST/PHP candidates competing against reserved vacancies the minimum qualifying marks in each subject shall be 30% and minimum qualifying marks in aggregate shall be 40% if adequate number of SC/ST/PHP candidates are not available in the general standard." 4. The present petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, had appeared at the examination and though he had secured more than 35% in each of the subjects, he had however failed to secure 40% in aggregate. The non-selection of the petitioner was the subject matter of challenge in O.A.No.253 of 2003 filed by him. 5. The Tribunal rejected the O.A. on the ground that the petitioner, having secured less than 40% in aggregate, was not eligible. The main contention now raised by the petitioner is to the effect that in fact for such examination for the subsequent year viz., 2008, the Department had fixed lesser marks for the reserved category and by applying the same yardstick, the petitioner should be selected. 6. This contention is bound to be rejected as the instruction which was made applicable for promotion during the subsequent year cannot be applied while considering the question of promotion for the previous year. .7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the instruction issued by the Government, there has to be a relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks for reserved category. Admittedly, in the present case, the minimum qualifying marks for reserved category was lesser than what was prescribed for the general category. Thus, the instruction of the Central Government regarding fixing a lower qualifying marks for the reserved categories had not been followed. Admittedly, in the present case, the minimum qualifying marks for reserved category was lesser than what was prescribed for the general category. Thus, the instruction of the Central Government regarding fixing a lower qualifying marks for the reserved categories had not been followed. It is evident that as per the instruction which was applicable to the promotion for the relevant year, a person, in order to be eligible, had to secure 40% in aggregate whereas the petitioner had secured 38%. Though for the subsequent year, a lesser qualifying marks has been prescribed by applying the instructions for the subsequent year, the non-promotion of the petitioner for the previous year cannot be challenged. 8. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Department had the discretion to reduce further the minimum qualifying marks as the intention of the Government is to encourage the promotion of the reserved category people. .9. We do not think that this submission can be accepted because the instruction itself had contemplated lesser qualifying marks for the reserved category which was obviously with a view to protect the interest of the reserved category. In the absence of any specific instruction or rule on that score, we do not think that it would be possible to interfere with the orders by applying a different yardstick or by applying a different policy. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.