JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider and make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Machinist Grinder Instructor in Industrial Training Institute against Backward Class; and hold that the petitioner is duly entitled to be appointed on the post in question; and further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from making appointment of respondent no. 6 on the post of Machinist Grinder Instructor in Industrial Training Institute. By way of amendment, the petitioner has further prayed for quashing letter dated 17.02.2014 whereby it has been decided not to call the petitioner for counseling for his appointment on the post of Machinist Grinder Instructor and petitioner's application has been rejected. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief are that in pursuance to advertisement no. 18 dated 07.07.2009 for making appointment on the post of Machinist Grinder Instructor in Industrial Training Institutes, besides other posts, the petitioner having possessed requisite qualification and experience, applied for the post in question and appeared in the examination conducted by Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (in short JCECEB), in which, he was found successful but appointment letter was not issued in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted representation dated 25.05.2012 before the Director, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, in which, it has specifically been mentioned that respondent no. 6 does not have experience as per the advertisement but the authorities are trying to make appointment of respondent no. 6 ignoring the fact that the petitioner is fully eligible having possessed all requisite qualification and experience which the respondent no. 6 is lacking. It has further been averred that vide letter dated 17.02.2014, the petitioner was informed that petitioner cannot be called for counseling as more than three years has lapsed after preparation of merit list, which the petitioner has challenged by way of filing Interlocutory Application. 3. Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, A.C to G.P II for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment as he secured 43.5 marks, which is more than the qualifying marks for being appointed against B.C I category, in which category he falls. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, A.C to G.P II for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment as he secured 43.5 marks, which is more than the qualifying marks for being appointed against B.C I category, in which category he falls. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Directorate, Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand has given direction to the Director, Employment and Training to call the petitioner for counseling in the Directorate whose name appears at serial no. 9 but the concerned authority defying the order passed by departmental secretary did not call him for counseling. In this regard, it has further been submitted that such direction was passed after rejection of the proposal of appointment of respondent no. 6 by the Departmental Minister. It has further been submitted that petitioner's rank is just above the rank of respondent no. 6. Referring to Annexure 9 and 9/1 to the rejoinder to counter affidavit dated 17.11.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that various appointments were made on the post of Instructor in pursuance to same advertisement dated 7.7.2009 in the year 2013 but the respondents are denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground of validity of panel subjecting him to discrimination. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of State of U.P Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj as reported in (2000) 3 SCC 699 ; R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India as reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230 and in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors Vs. Abhishek Shukla & Anr. as reported in (2009) 5 SCC 368 . 6. As against this, repudiating the claim of the petitioner, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein, it has been stated that out of eligible candidates, as per Combined Merit List five candidates were called for counseling/interview up-to Rank eight and out of the five candidates four candidates appeared and one Scheduled Tribe candidate did not choose to appear in counseling. But the rank of the petitioner in Combined Merit List was eight; hence he was rightly not called for counseling. But the rank of the petitioner in Combined Merit List was eight; hence he was rightly not called for counseling. It has further been submitted that the Government of Jharkhand did not agree to grant permission for fresh round of counseling as such no candidate was called for fresh counseling. Further, for clarification with regard to validity of panel of appointment of instructors of different Trade, opinion was sought for from Personnel, Administrative & Rajbhasha Department, which says that validity of panel shall be valid for one year only and in the case at hand merit list was prepared in the year 2010 and even petitioner approached this Court after three years. Giving reply on Annexure 9 and 9/1 to the rejoinder to counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on different footing as persons appointed in 2013 had been called for counseling in the year 2010-11 whereas the petitioner was never called for counseling. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings available on record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the reliefs sought for by the petitioners for the following facts and reasons: (I).The petitioner appeared for the examination “ITI Instructor Competitive Examination, 2009” for the post of Machinist Grinder Instructor held by Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Govt. of Jharkhand, in which, admittedly he was ranked at serial no. 9 and only eight candidates were called for counseling. (ii).It is not the case where any person junior to the petitioner was called for counseling rather the petitioner tried to make out a case that since appointment of respondent no. 6 was canceled and the case of the petitioner was recommended by the departmental Secretary; hence the petitioner who is placed just below at serial no. 8 ought to have been afforded with the opportunity to appear for counseling. 6 was canceled and the case of the petitioner was recommended by the departmental Secretary; hence the petitioner who is placed just below at serial no. 8 ought to have been afforded with the opportunity to appear for counseling. But, his claim has been denied by the respondents with the aid of circular of Personnel, Administrative & Rajbhasha Department, which says that validity of panel shall be valid for one year only and in the case at hand merit list was prepared in the year 2010 and even petitioner approached this Court after three years and now about decade is to be lapsed; hence taking into consideration the resolution/circular of Personnel, Administrative & Rajbhasha Department and efflux of time, no ground of interference is made out. (iii).So far ground of discrimination is concerned, on the pointed query put forth by this Court, the State has come up with specific affidavit stating therein that the case of the petitioner stands on different footing as persons appointed in 2013 vide Annexure 9 and 9/1 of the rejoinder to counter affidavit, had been called for counseling in the year 2010-11 whereas the petitioner was never called for counseling. This Court finds force in the statement made by the counsel for the State in this regard. (iv).So far as the case laws cited by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, these are not applicable in the case at hand. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.