ORDER : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner asserts his claim to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Pharmacist) on the ground that the sole candidate in the merit list did not join the post in question, therefore, petitioner having been placed in the ‘extended list’ deserved to be offered appointment on the said post. 2. Facts :- 2(i) The petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken by the respondents for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASI’) (Pharmacist). Total ten posts of ASI (Pharmacist) were advertised by the respondents in August, 2018. Out of which, two posts were meant for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, one for Scheduled Tribe Category, two for Other Backward Class category and five for the candidates belonging to General Category. The petitioner applied under the Scheduled Tribe Category (hereinafter referred to as ST category). He qualified the Physical Efficiency Test on 09.02.2019, written test on 10.03.2019 and skill test on 08.05.2019. He was declared unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination (in short DME) conducted by the respondents on 11.07.2019. A review medical examination of the petitioner was conducted on 24.09.2019 in which, he was declared medically fit. 2(ii) Name of the petitioner was kept at Sr. No.1 in the extended list prepared by the respondents for the post of ASI (Pharmacist) for ST Category. The sole candidate figuring in the merit list for the post in question under ST Category did not join. The petitioner represented to the respondents for selecting him as ASI (Pharmacist) on the ground that the selected candidate, figuring in the merit list, had not joined the post in question. The respondents rejected petitioner’s’ representation on 19.12.2019, giving following reasons :- “In this regard, it is intimated that you were shortlisted for Detailed Medical Examination as extended candidate. As per instructions of Admit Card issued to you for Detailed Medical Examination, it was clearly mentioned that candidates who were placed in extended list did not find place in the main merit list and such candidates were given a chance for Detailed Medical Examination against the possibility of vacancy that may arise due to candidate of main list getting declared medically unfit (during Detailed Medical Examination and Re-Medical Examination) or remaining absent. According to advertised category wise vacancies for subject recruitment, Offers of Appointment to all 10 selected candidates were issued and no reserved list was kept for subject recruitment.” 2(iii) Aggrieved against the rejection of his representation by the respondents and also against action of the respondents in not offering him appointment against the single post advertised for ST Category, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for the following substantive prayer: - “(i) Civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ order or direction specially in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P-10) by which the petitioner has been declined the post of ASI (Pharmacist) in ST category being entitled to be offered the post remained vacant, by non-joining of appointed candidate pertaining to ST category namely Abhishek Rai on spurious grounds with ulterior motive in illegal, discriminatory, biased and arbitrary manner, contrary to principal of natural justice and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, further issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ASI (Pharmacist) in ST category being fully eligible and medically fit.” 3. Contentions :- 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had qualified the physical efficiency test, the written test and the skill test. The petitioner had also been declared fit by the Review Medical Board on 24.09.2019. The petitioner had applied for the post of ASI (Pharmacist) under the ST Category. The post was not consumed by the candidate who was in the merit list. Therefore, the petitioner being the sole candidate, figuring in the extended list of ST Category, was required to be appointed to the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that once the duly advertised post was not consumed by the selected candidate, then the candidate next in order, has to be invited for filling up the vacancy. That the claim of the petitioner was against the advertised post and not against the waiting list. Learned counsel also argued that in not offering appointment to the petitioner, the respondents had discriminated him inasmuch as a candidate belonging to SC Category and figuring in the extended list was given appointment against the general category post. That the claim of the petitioner was against the advertised post and not against the waiting list. Learned counsel also argued that in not offering appointment to the petitioner, the respondents had discriminated him inasmuch as a candidate belonging to SC Category and figuring in the extended list was given appointment against the general category post. On the same analogy, petitioner was also required to be offered appointment against the post of ASI (Pharmacist) in ST Category, as the candidate in the merit list did not join the said post. 3(ii) Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that against one advertised post falling to the share of ST Category, two candidates were shortlisted for DME. The petitioner was shortlisted as an extended list candidate. This was in terms of selection procedure laid down in the Standard Operative Procedure (SOP) framed by the respondents on 18.09.2017 for recruitment of Para Medical Staff. As per these instructions, ‘candidates placed in extended list do not stand in the main merit list. They are given the chance for DME against the possibility of vacancy, they may arise due to candidates of main list getting declared medically unfit, including re-medical examination or remaining absent’. Learned ASGI further submitted that none of the eventualities mentioned in the SOP presented themselves in the selection process for the post of ASI (Pharmacist) in ST Category. Neither the selected candidate figuring in the merit list remained absent in the medical examination nor was he declared medically unfit. Therefore, there was no occasion for offering appointment to the petitioner whose name figured in the extended list. Explaining the difference in factual position, learned ASGI also refuted the allegations of discrimination. 4. Observations :- We have given out thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 4(a) The base facts are that the petitioner had applied against one post of ASI (Pharmacist) reserved for the candidates belonging to ST Category. He participated in the selection process. His name was not kept in the merit list, but in the extended list. This was in view of the SOP framed by the respondents on 18.09.2017 for recruitment of Paramedical Staff. Clause 12 of the SOP provides for recruitment procedure. He participated in the selection process. His name was not kept in the merit list, but in the extended list. This was in view of the SOP framed by the respondents on 18.09.2017 for recruitment of Paramedical Staff. Clause 12 of the SOP provides for recruitment procedure. Clause ‘h’ thereof reads as under :- “12 (h) MERIT LIST: (i) The merit list shall be drawn after adding the marks secured by the candidate in written test and practical test. The number of candidates will be considered for detailed medical examination equal to the category wise notified vacancies. This will be increased by 50% P extended list as per category wise merit. The candidates securing place in 50% extended list may be clearly informed while issuing admit cards for DME that they are nominated under extended list candidates and they do not stand in main merit list and their selection will depend upon the availability of unfilled vacancies arising due to unfitness of main list candidates after re-medical examination. This instruction may also be displayed on notice board at Recruitment Centre. (ii) The category wise merit list for UR, SC, ST and OBC (NCL) will be prepared. (iii) SC, ST & OBC candidates who have secured placed in the merit and have not availed any relaxed standard viz age, height, chest and written examination such candidates will be selected against the UR vacancy. SC, ST & OBC (NCL) candidates who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards, alongwith candidates belonging to other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserve share of vacancies. Such SC, ST & OBC (NCL) candidates will be accommodated against the general/unreserved vacancies as per their position in the overall merit list. The reserved vacancies will be filled up separately from amongst the eligible SC, ST & OBC (NCL) candidates which will, thus, comprise of SC, ST & OBC candidates who are lower in merit than the last General candidate on merit list of unreserved category but otherwise found suitable for appointment even relaxed standard. (iv) The final selection list will be prepared in order of merit, category wise after completion of review medical examination. (v) Selection of candidates shall be made in order of merit in each category. (vi) For Ex- servicemen separate merit list may be drawn under each category i.e. unreserved, SC, ST and OBC (NCL). (iv) The final selection list will be prepared in order of merit, category wise after completion of review medical examination. (v) Selection of candidates shall be made in order of merit in each category. (vi) For Ex- servicemen separate merit list may be drawn under each category i.e. unreserved, SC, ST and OBC (NCL). In case of recruitment to the vacancy reserved for Ex- Servicemen, the reserved vacancy remained unfilied due to non-availability of eligible or qualified Ex-Servicemen candidates, the same shall be filled up from the non-Ex- Servicemen candidates as per merit list. Resolution of Tie cases: (i) In case tie in marks, the candidates secured more marks in written examination get preference. (ii) If the tie still persists, the candidates older in age get preference. (iii) If the tie still persists, it is finally resolved by referring to the alphabetical order of names i.e. a candidates who name begins with alphabet which comes first in the alphabetical order gets preference.” 4(b) Clause 12(h)(i) clearly gives out the concept of preparation of two lists by the respondents in the selection process :- (i) First ‘the merit list’, which is to be drawn of the selected candidates after adding the marks secured in the written test and practical test. The number of candidates to be included in the merit list is to be considered for detailed DME equal to the category wise notified vacancies. In the instant case, there was only one post of ASI (Pharmacist) advertised for the candidates belonging to ST Category, therefore, only one candidate could figure in the merit list for the purpose of DME and depending upon the result of DME for his eventual appointment to the post in question. (ii) Second, ‘the extended list’, which is arrived at by increasing 50% as per category wise merit list. In the instant case, there being one post of ASI (Pharmacist) advertised for ST Category candidates, the merit list contained only one name, therefore, extended list also could consist only of one candidate. Name of the petitioner figured in the extended list. The respondent conducted medical examination of the petitioner in view of his name being there in the extended list. Name of the petitioner figured in the extended list. The respondent conducted medical examination of the petitioner in view of his name being there in the extended list. As per SOP, the candidates securing place in the extended list were to be clearly informed while issuing admit cards for DME that they are nominated as extended list candidates and further that they do not stand in the main merit list. That their selection will depend upon the availability of unfilled vacancies arising due to unfitness of main list candidates after re-medical examination or their remain absent. 4(c) Clause 12(h)(i) of the SOP stipulated that placement of the names of the candidates in the extended list would only imply nomination of the candidates in the sense that they do not stand in the main merit list and that their selection will depend upon the availability of unfilled vacancies arising out of unfitness of main list candidates after medical examination or their remaining absent. The laid down possible eventualities for offering appointment to the petitioner did not present themselves in the instant case. The candidate in the merit list presented himself in the medical examination and he was also declared fit for appointment. Under these circumstances, there was no occasion for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post in question, whose name only figured in the extended list. 4(d) The petitioner cannot even plead ignorance of the above referred condition for selection and appointment to the post in question. He was made aware of this condition by the respondents in the admit card issued to him, wherein this condition figured at instruction No. vii as under :- “Candidates placed in ‘extended list’ do not stand in the main merit list and they are being given a chance for Detailed Medical Examination against the possibility of vacancy that may arise due to candidate of main list getting declared medically unfit (including Re-medical Examination) or remaining absent.” The petitioner, participated in the selection process fully aware of the terms and conditions of the selection & appointment to the post in question. He is now estopped from making out a grievance against the said terms and conditions. If he had any grievance about the terms and conditions/SOP governing the selection process in question, he ought to have laid challenge to it before participating in the selection process. He is now estopped from making out a grievance against the said terms and conditions. If he had any grievance about the terms and conditions/SOP governing the selection process in question, he ought to have laid challenge to it before participating in the selection process. 4(e) The argument of discrimination advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also misplaced. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the recruitment process in question, a candidate belonging to SC category was given appointment against a general category post. A condition was raised that if a candidate belonging to SC Category from the extended list can be appointed to the post that fell vacant subsequently in the general category, then on the same analogy, the petitioner should also be given similar treatment and should have been appointed on the post belonging to ST Category, which fell vacant because of non-joining of the candidate figuring in the merit list of ST Category. The respondents in their reply have explained the circumstances in which the candidate belonging to SC category was shifted to the General Category. According to the respondents, total three candidates were shortlisted in the SC Category for DME including one Sh. Anil Kumar, who was at Sr. No.1 in the merit list of SC Category and as an extended list candidate shortlisted for DME in the general category. As per the result of DME, out of five candidates, who were shortlisted in the main merit list for DME in Un-reserved Category, one was declared medically unfit. Due to unfit declaration of one candidate shortlisted in the main merit list in the Un-reserved/general category, Anil Kumar of SC Category who was shortlisted as extended-01 for DME in Un-reserved category, was selected against the vacancy of Un-reserved Category and issued offer of appointment. Accordingly, on arising of one vacancy in SC Category due to selection of Anil Kumar in unreserved category, Shri Rakesh Kumar who was shortlisted as extended-01 in SC Category and found fit in DME was selected against the vacancy of SC Category and issued offer of appointment. The explanation given by the respondents in their reply is extracted hereinafter: - “10. That the contents of para 10 of the writ petition are wrong and baseless, hence denied. The explanation given by the respondents in their reply is extracted hereinafter: - “10. That the contents of para 10 of the writ petition are wrong and baseless, hence denied. It is informed that as per DOPT OM No.36012/13/88-Estt (SCT), dated the 22nd May, 1989 in cases of direct recruitment to vacancies, copy of DoPT OM dated 22.05.1989 is enclosed as Annexure R-10 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, the SC/ST candidates who are selected on their own merits without relaxed standards, along with candidates of other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. The reserved vacancies ad will be filled up separately from amongst the eligible SC/ST candidates who are lower in merit than the last candidate on the merit list but otherwise found suitable for appointment even by relaxed standards, if necessary. In terms of above instructions and on the basis of merit, one candidate namely Anil Kumar (Roll No.1916100666) of SC Category, who did not avail any relaxation being reserve category, was shortlisted as Extended- 01 for DME in Unreserved (UR) category and as Main-I in his own category. ie. SC category. It is also informed that against the advertised 05 vacancies in UR category for subject recruitment, 05 candidates. candidates as Main and 03 Extended shortlisted for DME. Candidate namely Anil Kumar (Roll No. 1916100666) of SC Category was shortlisted as Extended in UR Category and as Main against the 02 vacancy of SC Category. Total 03 candidates (02-Main & 01 Extended) including Anil Kumar (Roll No.1916100666) were shortlisted in SC Category for OME. As per the result of DME, out of 05 candidates ME AS who were shortlisted as main for DME in UR Category, 01 candidate declared unfit in DME and he did not prefer appeal for RME. Due to declaration of unfit of 01 candidate shortlisted as Main in UR Category, Anil Kumar (Roll No. 1916100666) of SC category who shortlisted as extended-01 for DME in UR selected against the vacancy of UR category and issued Offer of Appointment. Due to declaration of unfit of 01 candidate shortlisted as Main in UR Category, Anil Kumar (Roll No. 1916100666) of SC category who shortlisted as extended-01 for DME in UR selected against the vacancy of UR category and issued Offer of Appointment. Accordingly, on arising of 01 vacancy in SC Category due to selection of Anil Kumar (Roll No.1916100666) in UR Category, Roll No. 1916100597 Rakesh who shortlisted as Extended I in SC Category and found fit in DME was selected against the vacancy in SC Category and issued Offer of Appointment.” In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner was shortlisted for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) only as an extended list candidate against one vacancy of ST Category. He was duly informed by the respondents through instructions issued on his admit card that the candidates placed in the extended list do not stand in the merit list. The only benefit such candidates derive for being there in the extended list is that they get a chance undergo their Detailed Medical Examination. This is only to cover up possibility of any vacancy that may arise in future due to a candidate of the main merit list getting declared medically unfit or remaining absent. These eventualities did not materialize in the case in hand. Therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner for the post in question. In views of the discussions, we find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.