JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Rupachandra, learned ASG appearing for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by the office order dated 24-12-2014 issued by the respondent No. 5 rejecting the petitioners' representation, the above writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing and setting aside it. 3.1. According to the Petitioners, they are matriculate having possessed transport vehicle driving licences issued by the competent authority. In the year 2013, the office of the Inspector General of Police, North-Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong issued an advertisement inviting applications from amongst the residents of the North-Eastern region for appointment of a large number of Constables (Technical/Tradesmen) i.e., Driver/Fitter/Bugler/Tailor/Cobbler/Gardener/Carpenter/Painter/Cook, etc. including 17 (seventeen) vacant posts of CT/Driver (7 for UR; 2 for OBC; 1 for SC and 5 for ST candidates) in respect of the State of Manipur. 3.2. The selection procedure is divided into 4(four) stages - "a) Physical Efficiency Test; b) Screening of Testimonials; c) Physical measurement; and d) Written Test." The candidates who are qualified in the first 3 (three) stages are subjected to written test, the qualifying marks of which are 35 percent in respect of the UR candidates while in the case of reserved category, it is 33 percent. Para 13 of the instructions contained in the said advertisement as regards merit list reads as under - "13. MERIT LIST: i) List will be prepared solely on the basis of marks secured in the written examination for those who qualify Stage - III trade test. ii) Final selection of candidates will be in order of merit in each category on the basis of written test marks whereas other tests are only qualifying in nature. iii) In case of tie in marks, the merit list will be prepared in the following order:-- 3.3. The petitioners having qualified in the first three stages appeared in the written test and were declared as qualified therein making themselves eligible for medical examination in which also they were found fit. iii) In case of tie in marks, the merit list will be prepared in the following order:-- 3.3. The petitioners having qualified in the first three stages appeared in the written test and were declared as qualified therein making themselves eligible for medical examination in which also they were found fit. Indubitably the petitioners secured more than 35 percent of the total marks, in the said written test, which is the qualifying marks prescribed for the unreserved candidates but when the result of the said recruitment was published, the names of only 7 candidates from Manipur (5 General + 2 OBC) were shown, in the select list, to have been selected as CT/Driver as against 9 posts (7 General + 2 OBC) advertised in respect of Manipur. Despite having secured more than 35 percent, the petitioners did not figure in the select list. 3.4. Having learned from the reliable sources at that point of time that all the 4(four) OBC candidates including the petitioners secured more than 35 percent of the total marks in the written test, the petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation dated 09-05-2014 to the respondent No. 4 requesting him to consider for appointment against one of the two vacant posts of CT/Driver reserved for the OBC candidates after adjusting the first and the second OBC candidates in the merit list against the two UR posts, followed by a reminder dated 20-05-2014. In reply thereto, the respondent No. 5 addressed a letter dated 26-05-2014 informing the petitioner No. 1 that since all the 4(four) OBC candidates including the petitioners having availed age relaxation as OBC candidates, he could not be considered for appointment against the 2 (two) vacant posts of CT/Driver reserved for the OBC candidates. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 26-05-2014, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 513 of 2014 challenging the said letter which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court with the direction that the petitioner's representations be re-considered within 15 days there from. 3.5. In compliance of the said court's order dated 24-09-2014, the respondent No. 5 issued an order dated 24-12-2014 rejecting the representations submitted by the petitioners on the ground that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. 3.5. In compliance of the said court's order dated 24-09-2014, the respondent No. 5 issued an order dated 24-12-2014 rejecting the representations submitted by the petitioners on the ground that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 was in relation to appointment as per provisions contained in UP Act and did not pertain to recruitment in Central Government Service of the Union of India. In other words, their contention appears to be that the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the cases of the petitioners and they are bound by the instructions contained in the said office memoranda issued by the Union of India. Being further aggrieved by the said order dated 24-12-2014, the present writ petition is being filed by the petitioners. 4. Relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 , it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that relaxation of age given to an OBC candidates to compete with other is not reservation in itself and if such candidate acquires a berth in the merit list on the basis of his own merit, though enabled by the said relaxation in age but not by virtue of relaxed standard in determination of merit, he cannot be treated to have been selected as a reserved candidate. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the relevant provisions of Section8 of the UP Act, construed by the Hon'ble Supreme court, are pari materia to the provisions of the Office Memoranda referred to above and relied upon by the respondents. It is also submitted that all the 4(four) OBC candidates including the petitioners having secured more than 35 percent of the total marks in the written examination, they cannot be treated to have been selected as reserved candidates, though they have availed age relaxation as OBC candidates, in terms of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that all the 4(four) OBC candidates including the petitioners having secured more than 35 percent of the total marks in the written examination, they cannot be treated to have been selected as reserved candidates, though they have availed age relaxation as OBC candidates, in terms of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of appointment in Uttar Pradesh as per the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994 whereas the instant case pertains to the recruitment of the petitioners in the Central Government Service of the Union of India in respect of which Office Memoranda dated 22-05-1989 and 01-07-1998 specifically provide that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example, in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in the written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general candidates etc. the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against the reserved vacancies and such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies. 5. The short question that arise for consideration by this Hon'ble Court is as to whether the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Jitendra Kumar Singh case (supra) will apply to the facts of the present case also or not. In the said Jitendra Kumar Singh case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the issue as to whether the relaxation in fee and upper age limit of five years in the category of OBC candidates would fall within the definition of 'reservation' to exclude the candidates from the open competition on the seats meant for the general category candidates. It is no doubt true that the said issue has arisen out of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994. But the perusal of the said issue would clearly demonstrate that it was framed in such a way that it would have a bearing in all cases involving similar issue. It is no doubt true that the said issue has arisen out of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994. But the perusal of the said issue would clearly demonstrate that it was framed in such a way that it would have a bearing in all cases involving similar issue. It may also be noted that while deciding the said issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined all & related earlier decisions as regards reservation under Article 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Section 8 of the said UP Act reads as under: "8. Concession and relaxation.--(1) The State Government may, in favour of the categories of persons mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 3, by order, grant such concessions in respect of fees for any competitive examination or interview and relaxation in upper age-limit, as it may consider necessary. (2) The government orders in force on the date of the commencement of this Act, in respect of concessions and relaxations, including concession in fees for any competitive examination or interview and relaxation in upper age-limit and those relating to reservation in direct recruitment and promotion, in favour of categories of persons referred to in sub-section (1), which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall continue to be applicable till they are modified or revoked, as the case may be." The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-- "48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list. 49. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list. 49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates. 74. It is not disputed before us that relaxation in age is not only given to members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs, but also the dependants of freedom fighters. Such age relaxation is also given to ex-servicemen to the extent of service rendered in the army, plus three years. In fact, the educational qualifications in the case of ex-servicemen is only intermediate or equivalent whereas for the general category candidates it is graduation. It is also accepted before us that ex-servicemen compete not only in their own category, but also with the general category candidates. No grievance has been made by any of the appellant-petitioners with regard to the age relaxation granted to the ex-servicemen. Similarly, the dependants of freedom fighters are also free to compete in the general category if they secure more marks than the last candidate in the general category. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age "queers the pitch" in favour of the reserved category at the expense of the general category." 6. Therefore, we do not find much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age "queers the pitch" in favour of the reserved category at the expense of the general category." 6. The only stand of the respondents is that the decision of the apex court is in relation to an appointment as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994 which has nothing to do with the recruitment of Central Government employee in terms of the Office Memoranda dated 22-05-1989 and 01-07-1998, the relevant portion of which is as under: "3. In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example, in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in the written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates etc. the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against the reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies." There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that these provisions contained in the above Office memoranda are pari materia to the provisions of Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1994. The object, contemplated in the said provisions and sought to be achieved, is in the form of an exception carved out from the general rule that if a reserved category candidate secures marks more than what the last general category candidate secures, he is entitled to be selected against unreserved seat without being adjusted against the reserved seat. The basis or the reason behind such an exception is that once a candidate takes advantage of reservation/concessions under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, he cannot be permitted to be appointed against seat meant for the general category. Though the wordings of the provisions contained in the said Office Memoranda and the Section8 of the UP Act may not be exactly the same but the object and purpose remain the same. Though the wordings of the provisions contained in the said Office Memoranda and the Section8 of the UP Act may not be exactly the same but the object and purpose remain the same. One thing which can be noted is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not decided the issue in the said case only on the peculiar facts which are relevant and related only to the State of U.P. The said judgment was one in rem which would operate as a judicial precedent and lay down the law of the land unless and until a law is enacted by the Parliament or the State Legislature contrary thereto. While interpreting the provisions of the said UP Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the implication of the concessions and relaxations in the context of the provisions under Article 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution. In other words, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has added a new facet to the concept of reservation. 7. The respondents being the Union of India and its officials, are expected to act fairly and reasonably and once an issue relating to the Office Memoranda issued by it, has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical case, the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be respected and the respondents need not wait for the Office Memoranda being challenged by somebody. The respondents have failed to do so in the present case. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have secured more than 35 percent which is prescribed as qualifying marks for unreserved candidates. In compliance of this court's order dated 15-07-2015 directing the respondents to produce the relevant record, the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents has produced a copy of the merit list of OBC category in respect of CT/Driver which clearly demonstrates that the petitioners have secured 41 and 37 in the written test and therefore, the only thing that ought to have been done by the respondents was that the two OBC candidates who secured more marks than the petitioners ought to have been adjusted against the two unreserved vacancies which remain unfilled and the petitioners ought to have been selected against the two posts reserved for the OBC. Since the respondents having not done that, their actions are unfair and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned office order dated 24-12-2014 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners in terms of the observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and appoint the petitioners against the two posts of CT/Driver reserved for the OBC candidates after the two OBC candidates, already appointed, having been adjusted against the remaining two posts meant for unreserved candidates. There shall be no order as to costs.