ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, being O.B.C. Candidate, has sought for direction upon the respondents for appointment on the post of Farm Manager in term of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, by reviewing the panel list, since respondent no. 5 and one Niraj Kumar (now dead) have been appointed who were below in panel of the merit list. 2. The brief facts as depicted in the writ application is that in Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, appointments on various posts including the post of Farm Manager have been advertised. The petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form annexing all the documents and pursuant to the said application, the interview letter was issued to him for appearing in the interview before the Selection Committee. Thereafter, appointment letters have been issued to selected candidates. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained the copy of the select list under the Right to Information Act and from the information obtained, it is found that the petitioner has been considered as a general category candidate, as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition and from perusal of the select list, the petitioner's name has been found at serial no. 11 in the general category, having obtained 61 marks, where respondent No. 5 has got 60 marks and One Niraj Kumar (who is dead now) has got 59 marks. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioner, left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has knocked the door of this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent in not selecting the petitioner in the O.B.C. Category, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the respondents have admitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been considered as Extremely Backward Class, but without any justifiable reason, his case has been considered under general category candidate and therefore, actions of the respondents are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred to decision reported in 2017 (2) JLJR 234 (SC) in the case of Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred to decision reported in 2017 (2) JLJR 234 (SC) in the case of Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2017, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by distinguishing the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 , has been pleased to hold that the appellant who has applied under OBC Category by availing age relaxation and also attending the interview under the OBC Category, cannot claim right to be appointed under the General Category. Since the appellant has not challenged the constitutional validity of the proceedings read with Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 where there is express bar for candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC who availed relaxation, for being considered for General Category candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to decision in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Kumari Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 3782 of 2008. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner's permanent address is State of Bihar and the petitioner is outsider candidate and as per the rule, the Selection Committee has not recommended his name in OBC panel. Selection Committee has recommended petitioner's name in General Panel list at Sl. No. 11. The Selection Committee has recommended the name of Respondent No. 5 and other namely Niraj Kumar in OBC Category and being appointed from the OBC category from OBC panel. The respondent No. 5 is domicile of Jharkhand. 5. Mr. Md. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit and assiduously submitted that as per the Statute 17.2, the validity of panel is for one year, in the meantime, the validity of panel has expired. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, which is Annexure-6 to the affidavit. In the said advertisement, it has been specifically mentioned that the reservation roster will be followed as per order of Jharkhand State Government, vide Resolution No. 7 dated 09.11.2002. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, which is Annexure-6 to the affidavit. In the said advertisement, it has been specifically mentioned that the reservation roster will be followed as per order of Jharkhand State Government, vide Resolution No. 7 dated 09.11.2002. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to decision reported in 2006 (2) JCR 512 (Jharkhand) in the case of Kavita Kumari Kandhaw & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others with analogues cases wherein the Division Bench of this Court, by referring to decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the Backward Class of one State cannot be deemed to be so in relation to other State and the certificate issued by one State is not valid for other State. By referring to the aforesaid decisions, learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner could not have been considered, even though, he comes under the OBC Category in the State of Bihar. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that therefore, the case of the petitioner has rightly been considered under the General category, since he was placed at the bottom and his case is not considered for appointment. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety to have been committed by the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner under OBC Category, apart from that the validity of select list has expired since the appointment was of the year 2003, and in the meantime, 14 years have already elapsed. 7. In that view of the matter, even otherwise the case of the petitioner cannot be considered at this distance of time. As logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons, this court is not inclined to interfere with the prayer of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.