ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to consider the petitioner’s candidature in BC-1 category instead of BC-2 category and to declare him successful as per the scorecard issued by the respondent no. 1 with respect to Advertisement No. 04/2015 (Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination-2015). 2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 has committed serious error in not considering the candidature of the petitioner in BC-1 category, rather his candidature has been considered in BC-2 category. According to learned counsel, the petitioner belongs to ‘Kurmi’ caste. In support of the said fact, the petitioner has annexed copy of caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi on 26.12.2016 (Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit dated 08.05.2019) suggesting that he was issued caste certificate of Backward Class (Annexure-1) under the Jharkhand Reservation of Vacancies and Posts (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 stating inter alia that Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (J.S.S.C) after receiving the requisition from the State Government, started selection process for appointment on the post of constables in different districts and also for appointment of constables in JAP and accordingly, Advertisement No. 04/2015 was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of constable against the advertised posts. It would be evident from perusal of Clause-8(I) of Annexure-1 that no benefits of reservation is to be extended to a candidate if the same has not been claimed by the candidate in his/her application form. After issuance of advertisement, several candidates including the petitioner submitted their application forms before the J.S.S.C. for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of constable in different districts of State and also for appointment on the post of constable in JAP. The J.S.S.C, after receiving online application forms from the candidates, conducted the Preliminary Test examination, Mains examination followed by Physical and Medical Fitness Test. The petitioner was declared successful in Preliminary Test examination and Mains examination and as such, he was also allowed to appear in Physical and Medical Fitness Test. Thereafter, the J.S.S.C published the list of the shortlisted candidates for verification of the testimonials. The petitioner was declared successful in Preliminary Test examination and Mains examination and as such, he was also allowed to appear in Physical and Medical Fitness Test. Thereafter, the J.S.S.C published the list of the shortlisted candidates for verification of the testimonials. The petitioner was also shortlisted for verification of the testimonials. After verification of the testimonials of the successful candidates, the J.S.S.C published the final result for appointment of the successful candidates on the post of constable in JAP and thereafter made recommendation on 06.06.2017 for their appointment. 4. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner claimed benefits of reservation under BC-2 category and secured 173 marks whereas last successful candidate in BC-2 category secured 193 marks and last successful candidate in unreserved category secured 175 marks and as such, the petitioner was not declared successful for appointment on the post of constable in JAP. Since the petitioner secured less marks than the last successful candidate in BC-2 category in JAP, he was not declared successful for the appointment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The specific stand taken by the respondent no. 1 in the counter affidavit is that pursuant to Advertisement No. 04/2015, the petitioner submitted his online application on 14.09.2015 clearly mentioning his reservation category as BC-2, as would be evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The petitioner, in support of his claim that he belongs to BC-1 category, has relied on the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi on 26.12.2016. Thus, till filing of the online application by the petitioner pursuant to advertisement in question, the said caste certificate was not in existence. The petitioner himself claimed in the online application that he belonged to BC-2 category. The respondent no. 1 has specifically stated in paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner secured 173 marks as BC-2 category candidate whereas the last successful candidate in the said category secured 193 marks and, therefore, the petitioner was not declared successful for appointment on the post of constable in pursuance of the said advertisement. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any reason to entertain the petitioner’s prayer made in the writ petition. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.