ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. 3. In the matter of selection to the post of Telecom Technical Assistant, an advertisement was issued on 20.04.2013 for direct recruitment in Rajasthan Telecom Circle from open market. The vacancy position was prescribed unitwise and in Bhilwara unit, there were total 6 vacancies, out of which 4 vacancies were for unreserved category and two vacancies were reserved for OBC category. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner and other candidates submitted their candidatures which were considered. Written examination was held and as per the result/selection list declared on 30.11.2013, name of the (petitioner was placed at Serial No. 44 and he was declared qualified and selected. Thereafter, objections were raised by some of the candidates which resulted in revision of selection list which was declared on 13.12.2013 wherein, again the petitioner was declared qualified and selected but in Bhilwara unit. A further notification was issued and result which was earlier declared was again revised and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was placed in the wait list instead of main merit list vide order dated 25.01.2014. As the petitioner was ousted from the main list, he submitted an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding cut off marks of OBC category and grounds for change of his result. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 07.03.2014 that cut off marks cannot be declared and cannot be informed. As far as change of result of the petitioner was concerned, he was informed that earlier one Manish Kumar Sharma was selected against unreserved vacancy at Serial No. 2 and after examination, his date of birth was found as 23.09.1985 and he had crossed the age of 27 years, thus, his name was placed against OBC category instead of unreserved category. Due to this, petitioner's name was removed from the main list and was placed in the wait list. 4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in migrating him from main list to wait list on account of inclusion of one Manish Kumar Sharma, approached the Tribunal by filing original application. Due to this, petitioner's name was removed from the main list and was placed in the wait list. 4. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in migrating him from main list to wait list on account of inclusion of one Manish Kumar Sharma, approached the Tribunal by filing original application. The Tribunal, having considered the pleadings and documents on record, on facts, came to the conclusion that as Manish Kumar Sharma, who admittedly belonged to reserved category of OBC, had claimed age relaxation in his application form, which was granted to him, he could not be considered for selection against unreserved category, but he was entitled to be considered only in the reserved category of OBC to which he admittedly belonged. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, the Tribunal held that the migration of the petitioner from main list to wait list did not suffer from any illegality and the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.11.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend before us that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from patent illegality and is based on misinterpretation of settled principles with regard to inclusion of a reserved category candidate in the general category. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. Sandeep Choudhary and Others, (2022) 11 SCC 779 , learned counsel would submit that it is settled legal position that if a candidate, belonging to reserved category, secures more marks than a general category candidate, then in that case, he is entitled to be considered for selection and appointment in general category and not in the reserved category. The respondents committed grave illegality in migrating Manish Kumar Sharma from general category list to reserved category list by revising the list which was earlier correctly prepared, resulting in illegal exclusion of the petitioner from the main list and placement in wait list. 6. Other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents did not declare cut off marks for selection. 6. Other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents did not declare cut off marks for selection. He would further submit that the vacancy was declared by the respondents unitwise and therefore, merit list ought to have been prepared separately unitwise and no common merit list ought to have been prepared. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that present petition has no merit for the reasons which are stated as infra: 8. Admittedly, the petitioner and one Manish Kumar Sharma both belong to OBC category. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal as also the records of the case and we find that Manish Kumar Sharma, while submitting his application form, not only declared himself as a candidate belonging to OBC category, but he also claimed age relaxation. Learned Tribunal, in para 10 of its order, has recorded finding of fact based on scrutiny of the application form of Manish Kumar Sharma. In that para, it has been noted that in his application form, Manish Kumar Sharma at Column No. 10 mentioned that he belongs to OBC category and further claimed age relaxation as would be reflected from the entries made at Column No. 6 of the application form wherein against Column No. 6, “whether claiming age relaxation?” he wrote, “Yes.” 9. The Tribunal, on facts, found that when the merit list was earlier prepared on provisional basis, objections were submitted by various candidates including Manish Kumar Sharma, who claimed relaxation in age. It is also not in dispute that as per the advertisement, upper age limit was 27 years whereas Manish Kumar Sharma on crucial date i.e. 13.05.2013, was aged about 27 years, 7 months and 20 days. Therefore, unless age relaxation was granted to Manish Kumar Sharma, he could not be considered for appointment. The respondents-authorities, in that eventuality, decided to grant benefit of age relaxation to Manish Kumar Sharma. Having granted such age relaxation, merit list underwent consequential revision. Manish Kumar Sharma was removed from general candidate merit list and was placed in the merit list of OBC category. This eventually resulted in ouster of the petitioner from the merit list of OBC category to wait list of OBC category. 10. Having granted such age relaxation, merit list underwent consequential revision. Manish Kumar Sharma was removed from general candidate merit list and was placed in the merit list of OBC category. This eventually resulted in ouster of the petitioner from the merit list of OBC category to wait list of OBC category. 10. In order to hold that such an exercise on the part of the respondents was in accordance with law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal took into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (M.A. No. 2641 of 2019 in SLP (Civil) No. 23223 of 2018 with W.P. (C) No. 237 of 2020 decided on 18.12.2020). Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case, the Tribunal held that once a candidate belonging to reserved category is granted any benefit of age relaxation available to that particular reserved category, he will be considered only against the reserved category to which he belongs and not against general category. Applying the said principle, the action of the respondents in migrating Manish Kumar Sharma from general category merit list to merit list of OBC category was upheld. 11. Reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. Sandeep Choudhary and Others (supra) is misplaced in law as well as on facts both. That, on facts, was not a case where a reserved category candidate was granted benefit of age relaxation. Relying upon its earlier decisions in various cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law that where a candidate belonging to reserved category secures marks higher in order of merit then, he has to be placed in the general category merit list and not in the reserved category merit list. Thus, the said decision does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 12. It is not the case of the petitioner that Manish Kumar Sharma had secured less marks as compared to the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner admittedly having secured lesser marks in order of merit as compared to Manish Kumar Sharma could not claim his placement in the OBC category merit list over and above Manish Kumar Sharma. 13. An argument has been raised that cut off marks were not declared. If that be so, the petitioner admittedly having secured lesser marks in order of merit as compared to Manish Kumar Sharma could not claim his placement in the OBC category merit list over and above Manish Kumar Sharma. 13. An argument has been raised that cut off marks were not declared. Non-declaration of cut off marks would not make any difference in the case. Present is not a case where the petitioner has been able to prove that those, who did not obtain cut off marks, were included in the merit list prepared for OBC category. 14. An argument has also been raised that as the vacancies were notified unitwise, Manish Kumar Sharma ought not to have been considered against the vacancies. We do not find any substance in the said argument in the absence of there being any such restriction placed in the advertisement or selection process. 15. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.