JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. H. Boragohain learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner participated in a selection process for recruitment of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Such selection process was initiated by Staff Selection Commission by its advertisement dated 21.07.2018. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and from North Eastern Region, more particularly from Assam. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the select list dtd.21.01.2021, published by the Staff Selection Commission. 4. The selection test included Physical Standard Tests (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Written Examination etc. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that though he successfully came out in all segments without availing any benefit granted in the selection process, his candidature had been rejected on the ground that he had taken benefit of relaxation in age as provided to OBC candidates. 5. The background fact of the litigation can be summarised as under : (i) The Staff Selection Commission by notice dated 21.07.2018 sought application from intending illegible candidates for filling up 54953 numbers of vacancies for the post of Constables (G.D) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assasm Rifles (AR). (ii) The scheme of Examination, under Clause 9 (III) provides for required Physical standard. The said clause shows that for the General, SC & OBC candidates, the minimum height for male candidate is 170 cm and female candidate is 157 cm. In case of ST candidates, the same is declared to be 162.5 cm for male and 150 cm for female. A separate standard was provided for some States, including the State of Assam, which is 165 cm for male and 155 cm for female. The measurement of chest, a relaxed standard of 75.5 CM was provided for candidates belonging to some States, including State of Assam. (iii) Clause -10 which is the General Instructions and required to be complied with by the candidates during the examinations. The measurement of chest, a relaxed standard of 75.5 CM was provided for candidates belonging to some States, including State of Assam. (iii) Clause -10 which is the General Instructions and required to be complied with by the candidates during the examinations. (iv) Clause 10 (xiii) provides that those SC, ST, OBC and Ex- Serviceman candidates, who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards, along with candidates belonging to other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved category vacancies and such candidate will be accommodated against the unreserved vacancies as per their position in the overall Merit List. (v) Clause -10 (xiv) provides that those SC, ST, OBC and Ex- Serviceman candidates, who qualifies on the basis of relaxed standards i.e. age limit, height and chest measurement, experience or qualifications etc. are to be extended against the reserved vacancy. (vi) Clause 11(iv) of the advertisement stipulates that any SC, ST, OBC and Ex-Serviceman candidates who qualifies on the basis of relaxation including age, irrespective of his/her merit position, is to be counted against reserved vacancies. 6. The petitioner claims that secured more marks than his respective General category candidates. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner availed relaxation in age as on the date of submission his application he was aged bar. 7. Mr. Boragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of Jitender Kumar Singh and Anr –Vs-State of U.P. and Ors reported in AIR 2010 SC 1851 , this Hon’ble Apex Court held that the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the “level playing field”. Mr. Boragohain, learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jitender Kumar Singh and Anr (supra) further held that the relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, though the petitioner was granted relaxation in age, the petitioner should not be deprived of from appointment only on the ground that the age was relaxed. 8. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and he availed age relaxation under Clause 3,4(B) of the advertisement. Clause 11(iv) of the advertisement stipulates that any SC,ST,OBC and Ex-Serviceman candidates who qualifies on the basis of relaxed standards including age, irrespective of his/her merit position is to be counted against reserved vacancies. 9. 8. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and he availed age relaxation under Clause 3,4(B) of the advertisement. Clause 11(iv) of the advertisement stipulates that any SC,ST,OBC and Ex-Serviceman candidates who qualifies on the basis of relaxed standards including age, irrespective of his/her merit position is to be counted against reserved vacancies. 9. The case of Jitender Kumar Singh and Anr (supra) was considered in a subsequent case in Gaurav Pradhan –Vs-State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2017 SC (Supp) 810 and it was clarified that the ratio of the judgment in Jitender Kumar Singh and Anr (supra) has to be read in the context of statutory provision and the government orders and the said observation cannot be applied in a case where the government orders are to the converse effect. 10. In the case in hand also though it is not specifically a government order however, the Clause (iv) of the advertisement clearly stipulates that any SC/ST/OBC and Ex-Serviceman candidates who qualifies on the basis of relaxation including age, irrespective of his/her merit position, is to be counted against reserved vacancies. In that view of the matter, the ration laid down in Gaurav Pradhan (supra), shall be applicable in the present case inasmuch as it was clearly notified in the advertisement itself the position as discussed hereinabove. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) cannot be accepted. Rather, his case squarely covers by the ratio laid down in Gaurav Pradhan (supra). 12. The fact also remains that the petitioner had availed individual relaxation in age and therefore, the case of the petitioner shall be covered under Clause 10 (xiv) and not by Clause 10 (iii) of the Advertisement. 13. In view of the above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.