JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that vide advertisement Annexure P-5 dated 01.09.2014, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force invited applications for recruitment against the posts of Constable (Pioneer). In all, 497 posts of Constable (Pioneer) were advertised. The posts were advertised in six different categories including the category of Welder. 2. There were four posts of Welder. Three posts were advertised under the open category and one under Other Backward Class Category. No post was reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Category. As far as other categories of Constable (Pioneer) are concerned, which were also advertised vide same advertisement, certain posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories also. 3. The eligibility criteria for appointment to the posts of Constable (Pioneer)/Welder was that the candidate was to be within the age limit of 18 to 23 years, he was to possess education qualification of matriculation or equivalent from recognized University and one year Trade Certificate from an Industrial Training Institute or recognized institute or one year work experience in the trade concerned was required. Clause-VI of the advertisement dealt with cut off date for age and relaxation in upper age limit. The Note appended with the said Clause stipulated that the upper age limit was relaxable or Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe by five years and for Other Backward Class (Non Creamy Layer) were three years. 4. Note (iv) of Clause 6 further provided that candidates who wish to be considered against the vacancies reserved or seek age relaxation were to submit requisite certificates from the Competent Authority in the prescribed format when such certificates were to be sought by the Recruitment Board, failing which their claim for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe and Other Backward status will not be entertained and candidature will be considered under the general/unreserved category. 5. Petitioner herein, in response to the advertisement in issue, applied for the post of Constable (Pioneer)/Welder. Though the petitioner belongs to Schedule Cast Category, however, as no post was advertised under this particular category for a Schedule Caste candidate, therefore, he applied for being considered against three posts advertised under the unreserved category. The cut off date for determining the age as mentioned in advertisement Annexure P-5 was 09.10.2014. 6. Though the petitioner belongs to Schedule Cast Category, however, as no post was advertised under this particular category for a Schedule Caste candidate, therefore, he applied for being considered against three posts advertised under the unreserved category. The cut off date for determining the age as mentioned in advertisement Annexure P-5 was 09.10.2014. 6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that petitioner did his matriculation from Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in March, 2005 and thereafter, he had passed his 10+2 examination from the same board in Commerce Group in March 2008. He was also possessing a National Trade Certificate in the trade of fabrication (fitting and welding) which he had obtained from I.T.I. Shahpur in the year 2008-09. The date of birth of the petitioner is 30.11.1988. The Admit Card which was issued to the petitioner is appended with the petition as Annexure A-6 and perusal thereof demonstrates that he was called for test, trade and interview on 17.03.2015. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the result of said recruitment which was displayed on the website of Indo Tibtean Border Police, relevant extract of which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-8, demonstrates that despite petitioner having been awarded 79 marks in the selection process, respondent No.4, who had secured only 78 marks was reflected as selected for appearing before the Medical Board, whereas the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected as he was not called for appearing before the Medical Board. 8. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner had filed the present writ petition inter alia praying for the following relief:- " That the selection of respondent No.4 for appearing before the Medical Board for recruitment to the post of Constable (Pioneer)/Welder in I.T.B.P against the post of General candidate, as displayed in the website of I.T.B.P. at annexure P-9, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner having better score, may kindly be held selected for appearing before the Medical Board for recruitment to the said post". 9. 9. Contention of the petitioner is that act of the respondent of arbitrarily giving preferential treatment to respondent No.4 by inviting him to appear before the Medical Board and thus ignoring the petitioner who is higher in merit than respondent No.4 is an arbitrary act and the same deserves to be quashed and petitioner deserves to be invited for appearing before the Medical Bord as also selected for the post in issue. 10. As despite service, respondent No.4 chose not to appear before the Court, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 11. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed their reply to the writ petition, in which they have justified the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in the following terms:- " 3. That in reply to the averments contained in this para, it is submitted that as per recruitment advertisement Para-1 (Annexure R-1) in the vacancies mentioned for Constable (Welder), there was no post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (Welder) in ITBPF under SC category. Upper age limit for UR category candidate was 23 years. The cut off date for determination of age of of UN-Reserved category was 09.10.2014 and upper age was relaxable by 5 years for SC/ST category and for OBC (Non-creamy layer) by 3 years. The petitioner was 25 years 10 months and 10 days old as on 09.10.2014 as his date of birth is 30.11.1988. The said factum would be evident from the copy of application annexure R-2 for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court. It is also submitted that due to high volume of application received by the replying respondents for various trades of Constable (pioneer), Scrutiny was to be done at two stages, i.e. (i) on receiving application and (ii) after drawing of merit list and DME. The petitioner was rejected at second stage of scrutiny as there was no vacancy for SC candidates for the post of welder and the petitioner was overage for unreserved vacancy. Copy of merit list is being placed herewith as Annexure R-3 for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court". 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the reasons which have been put-forth by the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Copy of merit list is being placed herewith as Annexure R-3 for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court". 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the reasons which have been put-forth by the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has argued that as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, therefore, irrespective of the fact as to whether or not he was to be considered for a post reserved for Scheduled Caste or a post which was an unreserved post, the petitioner was entitled for relaxation in age limit. Accordingly, he prayed for that the act of the respondents be set aside and the petitioner be granted relief, as prayed for. 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has argued that the relaxation of age which was provided for in the advertisement for candidates belonging to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe categories etc., is to be construed viz-a-viz that particular post provided the post is available. He has argued that if a candidate belonging to reserve category is applying for an unreserved post, then he cannot seek benefit of age relaxation. He has further argued that as the petitioner was being considered against a post meant for unreserved category, therefore, his eligibility had to be seen viz-a-viz the eligibility criteria which was provided for in the advertisement for unreserved category. On these grounds, he has argued that as there is no merit in the petition, the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 15. The advertisement in issue is Annexure P-5. A perusal of the same demonstrates that respondents/employers advertised 497 vacancies of Constable (Pioneer) to be filled up in terms of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Acts and Rules. Out of these 497 vacancies, 269 were unreserved, 69 were reserved for Schedule Caste Category, 37 were reserved for Schedule Tribe Category and 122 were reserved for Other Backward Class Category. However, total posts belonged to six different categories and it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that how many vacancies were available in each category and how many posts were reserved. However, total posts belonged to six different categories and it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that how many vacancies were available in each category and how many posts were reserved. Details thereof are mentioned hereinbelow:- " Name of Post Total vacancies to be filled up Reservation status Application should be addressed to UR SC ST OBC Constable (Pioneer) The Inspector General, HQrs Central Frontier Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Plot No.163-164 (E-8), Trilocahan Nagar, P.O.:Trilanga Near Shahpura, Bhopal(MP) PIN Code-462039" Electrician 135 68 20 10 37 Plumber 90 48 13 07 22 Carpenter 92 57 12 08 15 Welder 04 03 0 0 01 Painter 15 08 02 01 04 Mason 161 85 22 11 43 Total 497 269 69 37 122 16. In the present case, we are concerned only with the category of Welder. As already mentioned hereinabove, four vacancies of Welder were advertised vide this advertisement. None was reserved for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe category. Three vacancies were advertised as unreserved and one vacancy was advertised as Other Backward category. There is no mention in the entire advertisement that the age relaxation otherwise admissible to a Scheduled Caste category candidate could be availed by him or her even while applying for a post which was not reserved for the said category. In other words, the advertisement did not provide that a Schedule Caste category candidate applying against an unreserved post was eligible for age relaxation which was contemplated in the advertisement for a Scheduled Caste candidate. 17. Of course, Clause-VI of the advertisement clearly contemplated that the upper age limit was relaxable for Scheduled Caste candidates by 5 years. However, this relaxation in the absence of any mention in the advertisement that the same was available to Scheduled Caste candidates for unreserved vacancies also, has to be read viz-a-viz a Scheduled Caste candidate applying for a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category. 18. Note (iv) of Clause 6 of the advertisement is quite material in this regard and the same provides as under:- "Candidates who wish to be considered against vacancies reserved or seek age relaxation must submit requisite certificate from the competent authority, in the prescribed format when such certificates are sought by the Recruitment Board. Otherwise, their claim for SC/ST/OBC status will not be entertained and their candidature/ applications will be considered under General (UR) category. The formats of the certificates are annexed. Otherwise, their claim for SC/ST/OBC status will not be entertained and their candidature/ applications will be considered under General (UR) category. The formats of the certificates are annexed. Certificates obtained in any other format will not be accepted". 19. A perusal of the same clearly demonstrates that a candidate was required to put stake to its claim as a SC/ST/OBC candidate by submitting certificates in the format, which was annexed with the advertisement. 20. Clause 6 of the advertisement further contemplated as under:- "ENCLOSURES REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED WITH APPLICATIONS Copies of following documents be attached with the application form:- i) Educational Certificate. ii) Date of birth certificate. (Matriculation or 10th pass certificate). iii) Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribe/ OBC Certificate (If belonging to any of these categories) issued by an authority not lower than Tehsildar or SDM, SC/ST/OBC certificate (as applicable) must be prescribed proforma as attached at Annexure-III and ''IV'' respectively. iv) Passport or Pan Card or Voter ID or Adhar Card or Domicile Certificate for verification of citizenship. v) Height/ chest relaxation certificate as per Annexure-V, if applicable. vi) Discharge certificate for Ex-Servicemen. vii) Professional Experience certificate (as applicable). viii) Three self-addressed envelopes of 4"X9" size with Rs.5/- postage stamps affixed on each envelope. ix) Envelope containing Application must be superscribed in bold letters "APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF CONSTABLE (PIONEER) IN ITBP". All the original documents/ certificates as applicable are required to be brought at the time of Phase-I, Phase- III and Phase-IV of recruitment test as mentioned at Annexure-II". 21. In this backdrop, when one peruses the annexures appended with the advertisement, one finds that Annexure-III is prescribed therein under the following heading:- "FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY A CANDIDATE BELONGING TO SCHEDULED CASTE OR SCHEDULED TRIBE, APPLYING FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSTS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA". 22. Annexure-Iv is prescribed therein under following heading:- "FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES APPLYING FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSTS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA". 23. Annexure-V is prescribed therein under following heading:- "FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE CANDIDATES THOSE WHO INTEND TO AVAIL RELAXATION IN HEIGHT OR CHEST MEASUREMENT". 24. In addition, Annexure VI deals with Medical Fitness Certificate, which is not all that relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of this petition. 25. 23. Annexure-V is prescribed therein under following heading:- "FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE CANDIDATES THOSE WHO INTEND TO AVAIL RELAXATION IN HEIGHT OR CHEST MEASUREMENT". 24. In addition, Annexure VI deals with Medical Fitness Certificate, which is not all that relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of this petition. 25. In my considered view, a harmonious reading of the provisions of the advertisement and annexures appended therewith leads only to one conclusion that relaxations mentioned in the advertisement available to a Scheduled Caste candidate, were meant only in case a Scheduled Caste candidate was applying for a post reserved for the said category. Otherwise, a Scheduled Caste candidate, if applying for unreserved post, had to fulfill the eligibility criteria including the age limit as was prescribed in the advertisement for a general category candidate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was over age as far as age limit mentioned in the advertisement for an unreserved category candidate is concerned. 26. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that in the advertisement itself, it was also mentioned that 10% of the vacancies in each category were reserved for Ex-Servicemen and in case vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen remained unfulfilled due to non-availability of eligible or qualified candidate, the same shall be filled by the candidates of non Ex-Servicemen category. The age relaxation is provided for Ex-Servicemen category also in the advertisement and it was mentioned in the same that upper age limit would be relaxable in accordance with the government orders or the subject. 27. Now, most importantly in Note (v) appended to Clause 6 which dealt with age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates, whereas the age relaxation permissible beyond the upper age limit was prescribed for Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates by five years, the same for Ex-Servicemen is prescribed as three years after deduction of the Military Service rendered from the actual age. 28. The advertisement category contained distinction in the age relaxation viz-a-viz Ex-Servicemen candidate belonging to general category and Ex-Servicemen candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe category a there was reservation to the extent of 10% of the vacancies in each category. No such express provision was contained viz-a- viz unreserved categories in case a Scheduled Caste candidate was applying for the same. 29. No such express provision was contained viz-a- viz unreserved categories in case a Scheduled Caste candidate was applying for the same. 29. As already mentioned above, the advertisement did not prescribe or contain that in case a Scheduled Caste candidate was applying for an unreserved post, then also he was entitled for age relaxation. 30. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission, (2019) 7 SCC 383 , while dealing with a situation akin to the one involved in the present petition, has held as under:- "22. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision empowering the State to make any provision or reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. It is purely a matter of discretion of the State Government to formulate a policy for concession, exemption, preference or relaxation either conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the backward classes of citizens. The reservation being the enabling provision, the manner and the extent to which reservation is provided has to be spelled out from the orders issued by the Government from time to time. 23. In the instant case, State Government has framed policy for the grant of reservation in favour of SC/ST and OBC by the Circulars dated 21.01.2000 and 23.07.2004. The State Government has clarified that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a candidate for SC/ST, SEBC category in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitting number of chances in the written examination etc., then candidate of such category selected in the said manner, shall have to be considered only against his/her reserved post. Such a candidate would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved post. 24. Now, let us consider the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra). In this case, this Court was considering the interpretation of Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short "1994 Act") and the Government Instructions dated 25.03.1994. 24. Now, let us consider the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra). In this case, this Court was considering the interpretation of Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short "1994 Act") and the Government Instructions dated 25.03.1994. Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of this Act provided for reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes which is as under: "3(6) If a person belonging to any categories mentioned in sub-section (1) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under subsection (1)." 25. The State of U.P. issued Instructions dated 25.03.1994 on the subject of reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Groups in the Uttar Pradesh Public Services. Last line of these instructions is as under: "It shall be immaterial that he has availed any facility or relaxation (like relaxation in age limit) available to reserved category." 26. On consideration of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the 1994 Act and the Instructions dated 25.03.1994, this Court held that grant of age relaxation to a reserved category candidate does not militate against him as general category candidate if he has obtained more marks than any general category candidates. This judgment was based on the statutory interpretation of 1994 Act and the Instructions dated 25.03.1994 which is entirely different from the statutory scheme under consideration in the instant appeal. Hence, the principle laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh has no application to the facts of the present case. 27. In Deepa, the appellant had applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant Grade II in Export Inspection Council of India functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India under OBC category by availing age relaxation. The Department of Personnel and Training had issued proceedings O.M. dated 22.05.1989 laying down the stipulation to be followed by various Ministries/Departments for recruitment to various posts under the Central Government and the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes candidates. Paragraph 3 of the said O.M. is as under: "3. The Department of Personnel and Training had issued proceedings O.M. dated 22.05.1989 laying down the stipulation to be followed by various Ministries/Departments for recruitment to various posts under the Central Government and the reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes candidates. Paragraph 3 of the said O.M. is as under: "3. In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standards as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies." 28. The judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), was pressed into service in support of the contention that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes candidates, the same cannot be treated as a bar on such candidates for being considered for general category vacancies. This Court did not agree with the said proposition. It was held that Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) was based on the statutory interpretation of the U.P. Act, 1994, and the GO dated 25.03.1994 which provides for an entirely different scheme. Therefore, the principles laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the said case. 29. Similar question arose in Gaurav Pradhan In this case the Government had issued Circular dated 24.06.2008 which is as under: "Circular dated 24-6-2008 6.2. In the State, members of the SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that of age, etc.) payment of examination fee in case of direct recruitment....." 30. Taking into consideration the above circular, this Court held that the ratio of the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) has to be read in the context of statutory provisions and the G.O dated 25.03.1994 and the said observation cannot be applied in a case where the Government Orders are to the converse effect. It was held as under. (Gaurav Pradhan case, SCC p. 368, para 32) "32. It was held as under. (Gaurav Pradhan case, SCC p. 368, para 32) "32. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh which was based on statutory scheme and the Circular dated 2531994 has to be confined to scheme which was under consideration, statutory scheme and intention of the State Government as indicated from the said scheme cannot be extended to a State where the State circulars are to the contrary especially when there is no challenge before us to the converse scheme as delineated by the Circular dated 24-6-2008." 31. The judgments in Deepa (supra) and Gaurav Pradhan (supra) fully support the case of the respondents. 32. The judgment in Ajithkumar (supra) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of the instant appeal. In that case, this Court was not examining the effect of a statutory provision/circular granting age relaxation to the candidates belonging to the reserved category. 33. Similarly, in Vikas Sankhala (supra), relaxation of marks of TET was allowed to different categories (under the orders of the State Government dated 23.03.2011). After such relaxation, the reserved category candidates were selected as having obtained more marks than the last general candidate and were included as general category candidates. The general category candidates contended that since relaxation was obtained prior to the circular dated 11.05.2011, reserved category candidates were not eligible to be included as general category candidates. This Court, after noticing the circulars issued from time to time, held that relaxation given in the marks in the TET examination was not part of the recruitment process. This judgment also does not assist the appellant in any manner. 34. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that relaxation in age at the initial qualifying stage would not fall foul of the circulars dated 29.01.2000 and 23.07.2004. The distinction sought to be drawn between the preliminary and final examination is totally misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement that a person who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily avail of the same relaxation even at the final stage. The distinction sought to be drawn between the preliminary and final examination is totally misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement that a person who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily avail of the same relaxation even at the final stage. We are of the view that the age relaxation granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category in the instant case is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India." 31. The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana''s case, supra, clearly demonstrates that whether or not age relaxation is available to a Scheduled Caste candidate applying for an unreserved post has to be seen viz-a-viz the process which stands initiated in issue/Guidelines of the employer. 32. In the present case, neither the advertisement nor contents thereof provided that Scheduled Caste candidate applying against an unreserved post was eligible for age relaxation which was provided for a Scheduled Caste candidate in the advertisement. 33. Therefore, the relaxation which was provided in the advertisement for Scheduled Caste candidate is to be read only available against those posts which are expressly reserved for Scheduled Caste category. 34. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present case as this Court does not finds any infirmity with the act of the respondents of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. This petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.