ORDER 16.07.2008 — Heard Shri T.K. Mandal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Mahanti, learned Advocate General for the respond¬ents. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation alleging himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste. He claims to possess the Law Degree and is eligible to appear in the examination scheduled to be held from 20th July, 2008 for Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) for which The Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 have been published in the Official Gazette by notification dated 17th August, 2007. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution some relaxation of marks should have been granted to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, as had been done on earlier occasions. Therefore, this Court should issue a direc¬tion to grant relaxation of marks at least to the extent of 5% for qualifying in the said examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri T.K. Mandal submit¬ted that considering the backwardness of the candidates belonging to reserved categories relaxation of marks at least of 5% should have been granted while framing the aforesaid Rules as had been granted on earlier occasions. Therefore, direction should be issued for making similar relaxation considering the provisions of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Mahanti, learned Advocate Gener¬al has opposed the petition vehemently contending that Articles 15 and 16 the Constitution are merely enabling provisions and nobody can claim reservation or any kind of relaxation under the said Article as a matter of right. Therefore, the relief sought cannot be granted and the writ petition is liable to be dis¬missed. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. The provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution are merely enabling provisions which empower the statutory authorities to grant relaxation, if they so consider. Therefore, it is for the authorities concerned to take a decision as to whether it is desirable to grant any kind of reservation or relaxation. Only because a person belongs to the reserved catego¬ry he cannot claim such relief. Therefore, it is for the authorities concerned to take a decision as to whether it is desirable to grant any kind of reservation or relaxation. Only because a person belongs to the reserved catego¬ry he cannot claim such relief. If in the past such relaxation had been granted and taking into account the past experience the authorities have changed the criteria, this Court cannot sit in appeal against it. Article 335 of the Constitution of India specifically pro¬vides for maintenance of efficiency of Administration. The bene¬fit of vertical reservation can be denied to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes if it adversely affects the maintenance of efficiency of Administration. Reservation in educational institution and in employment can be provided under Article 15 (1) or 16 (1), or 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. Both the said provisions enable the Competent Authority to provide for reservation, they are merely enabling provisions, while Article 335 is in mandatory language. (Vide Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1981 SC 298 ; Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1993 SC 477 ; Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anoth¬er. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, AIR 1999 SC 2894 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498 ). A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.U. Chin¬naiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, AIR 2005 SC 162 , held as under : “Furthermore, the emphasis on efficient administration placed by Article 335 of the Constitution must also be considered when claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to employ¬ment in the services of the Union are to be considered.” A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in M. Nagraj & others v. Union of India & others, (2006) 8 SCC 212 , examined the validity of the Constitution (Seventy Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995; the Constitution (Eighty First Amendment) Act 2000; the Constitution (Eighty Second Amendment) Act, 2000; and the Consti¬tution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, providing for reserva¬tion to Scheduled Castes in promotions, which also provided for relaxation of qualifying marks etc. and held that constitutional limitation of efficiency under Article 335 can be relaxed but not obliterated. and held that constitutional limitation of efficiency under Article 335 can be relaxed but not obliterated. The Court observed as under : “If the appropriate government enacting a law providing for reservation without keeping in mind the parameters in Article 16 (4) and Article 335 then this Court will certainly set aside and strike down such legislation...... It is for the State concerned to decide in a given case, whether the overall efficiency of the system is affected by such relaxation. If the relaxation is so excessive that it ceases to be qualifying marks then certainly in a given case, as in the past, the State is free not to relax such standards. In other cases, the State may evolve a mechanism under which efficiency, equity and justice, all three variables could be accommodated.” Thus, only in exceptional cases, in compelling circumstances and in the interest of the reserved category candidates, the State may relax the qualifying marks after identification by weighing the comparable data, without affecting general efficien¬cy of service as mandatorily provided under Article 335 of the Constitution. In view of the above, when the opposite parties have taken a decision not to grant relaxation though in the past it had been so granted, no fault can be found with the said decision. Be that as it may, Selection process starts with issuance of advertisement and vacancies have to be filled up as per the eligibility etc. as applicable on the said date. (Vide Y.V. Rangaiah & others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao & others : AIR 1983 SC 852 ; A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & another : AIR 1983 SC 1143 ; P. Ganeshwar Rao & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others : AIR 1988 SC 2068 , and P. Mahendran & others v. State of Karnataka & others : AIR 1990 SC 405 ). It is settled legal position that the criteria of selection cannot be changed by any means whatsoever after commencement of the selection process (Vide Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi : 2008 AIR SCW 3205). In the instant case vacancies stood advertised long back and in view of the above, as criteria for selection cannot be changed after commencement of the selection process, the writ petition is liable to fail. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accord¬ingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.