JUDGMENT : RAJAN ROY, J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner herein had secured 392.54 marks. Based thereon, he claims entitlement to be selected and appointed as Lecturer of Physics in pursuance to the advertisement in question. The grievance is that three others, all belonging to the OBC category, namely, Yogendra, Ravi Pal and Vishal Tevatia had also secured 392.54 marks, but out of them Sri Yogendra has been selected against the general seat and the remaining two against the OBC category. 3. The contention is that Yogendra having obtained concession/relaxation for OBC category could not have been selected and appointed against the general seat. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 6.4.2017 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2017 (Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and others). 4. Counsel for the Commission, on the other hand, submits that Sri Yogendra though belonging to the OBC category was adjusted against the general seat on the basis of his own merit having secured 392.54 marks and others including the petitioner securing the same marks were not appointed against the said seat for the reason that in the event of a tie, the one, who is older in age, is selected. As far as the other two OBC category candidates are concerned, as they were excluded by the candidature of Yogendra, therefore, they have been selected for the OBC category seat for which they had secured more than the cut off mark. In this scenario, he says that the petitioner could not be selected. 5. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 3 SCC 119 it has been held that reserved category candidate, if found suitable for selection against the general seat on his own merit, can be adjusted against the same irrespective of the fact that he may have been given certain concession/benefits of the reserved category such as relaxation in age etc. 6. Considering the facts as narrated by the counsel appearing for the Commission, the petitioner does not have any case for interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. Considering the facts as narrated by the counsel appearing for the Commission, the petitioner does not have any case for interference in writ jurisdiction. The reliance placed upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepa (supra) is misconceived for the reason that on a bare perusal of the said judgment, it is found that in the relevant Rules considered therein there was a specific provision prohibiting adjustment of reserved category candidates against general seats if they had been given the benefit of concession / relaxation meant for such category. Based on this Rule the Supreme Court distinguished the precedent laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra). In fact, this issue as far as the State of U.P. is concerned, is covered by the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh's (supra) as there is no such provision corresponding to the one existing in Deepa (supra), in the State of U.P. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in a recent judgment in Writ Petition No. 5158(S/S) of 2015 (Abhishek Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. dated 24.8.2016 which has been upheld in Special Appeal. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.