JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for cancellation of the final result of candidates, who have been declared successful against the vacancy and post being notified vide Employment Notification No. 03/2016 (Annexure-4 series) through website, on the ground that major irregularities and even illegalities have been committed by the Selection Board for awarding weightage marks to many candidates, who are not possessing experience and even do not have Trade Certificate as Electrician from an Industrial Training Institute (in short ITI), whereas the petitioner is having experience of more than 5 (five) years in the job as ‘Switch Board Operator’ and also being handicapped to the extent of 60% and also possessing of his trade certificate as Electrician from recognized I.T.I. but he has been deprived from being selected due to not providing weightage marks for each 6 months period of service in between the cutoff date determined by the respondents from 01.01.2007 to 01.12.2016 as provided under Clause-12(C) of the aforesaid Employment Notification and even after participating in the written test the petitioner has been deprived from the right of his employment irrespective of securing 32 marks in the score card and the weightage marks of the 1.5 for each 6 months period of his service under the respondents which has not been taken into consideration by the Selection Board. The petitioner has further prayed after cancellation of the aforesaid result for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by providing weightage marks of his experience and trade certificate as Electrician from recognized I.T.I and also to restrain the respondents from issuing any letter of joining to the candidates, who have been declared successful against the Employment Notification No. 03/2016. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the concerned respondent issued Employment Notice No. 03/2016 for various posts, as outlined in the advertisement. The notice stipulated that candidates with specified experience would receive up to 15 additional marks and a maximum of 5 years' age relaxation. Clause 12(C) clearly outlines the eligibility criteria, requiring an ITI certificate in the relevant trade and one year of post-qualification experience. The notice stipulated that candidates with specified experience would receive up to 15 additional marks and a maximum of 5 years' age relaxation. Clause 12(C) clearly outlines the eligibility criteria, requiring an ITI certificate in the relevant trade and one year of post-qualification experience. Candidates with direct experience in the advertised organization during the specified period would be eligible for additional marks and age relaxation, verified by a designated officer's certificate indicating work days and wages. Following the initial document verification of shortlisted candidates, the respondent invited objections regarding the provisionally awarded experience and weightage marks between November 10th 2016, and November 16th 2017. A total of 321 emails were received, with 19 being blank and the remaining 302 objections were examined based on the documents submitted by the candidates. After addressing the objections in accordance with the employment notice, a list of candidates whose documents aligned with the notice and their skill scores was published on the website. Subsequently, the results of qualified and disqualified candidates, along with the final selection list, were uploaded on the official website after completing the document examination process. 4. The petitioner has contended for annulment of the final outcome of candidates announced for the vacancy and post listed in Employment Notification No. 03/2016 on the basis of significant irregularities and potential illegal actions by the selection board. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the significant irregularities and illegalities committed by the selection board, the candidates declared successful under Employment Notification No. 03/2016 should be annulled. He further submits that earlier, applications were invited for Electrician/Wireman roles under Employment Notification No. 02/2016, requiring I.T.I. qualification and one year of experience. However, this was cancelled due to irregularities. Subsequently, Employment Notification No. 03/2016 was issued, inviting online applications with increased vacancies. Learned counsel contended that following the petitioner's participation in the written test, the result for 493 successful candidates was posted on the website on 6.10.2017. Upon objection by the “Jharkhand Vidyut Supply Tachniki Shramik Sangh” union, the initial result was held for re-verification. Despite this, the revised result for the same candidates was re-published on 20.03.2018 without investigating the previous irregularities. Upon objection by the “Jharkhand Vidyut Supply Tachniki Shramik Sangh” union, the initial result was held for re-verification. Despite this, the revised result for the same candidates was re-published on 20.03.2018 without investigating the previous irregularities. He further argued that despite possessing over five years of relevant experience as a Switch Board Operator and being certified as an Electrician, the petitioner was not selected due to the failure to provide weightage marks for each 6-month period of service as mandated. Learned counsel further contended that the successful candidates' results were posted on the website on March 20, 2018, disregarding the conditions outlined in Employment Notification No. 03/2016. This was done through selective choice and association by the respondents, despite the mandatory requirements stated in Clause 12(C). He contended that the respondents' actions in depriving the petitioner of his employment rights was arbitrary, unlawful, and discriminatory, violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that this writ application may be allowed and his case may be reconsidered. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that according to the advertisement, candidates with relevant experience were eligible for Experience Preference weightage marks (EP). He further submits that the petitioner's objection regarding EP was assessed through the objection management system established by Nigam. The report from EEE, Daltonganj, indicated that the petitioner's experience was in a different role, rendering him ineligible for EP. He further submits that the Government of Jharkhand rules stated that 3% reservation for Physically Handicapped Persons (PHP) be applied to certain posts in the Group-Technical Staff. This comprised 493 positions, with 15 reserved for PH candidates (1% each for OH, VH, and HH). The petitioner, categorized as OH, could not secure a spot as all five OH-designated positions in the Technical Staff group were filled by candidates with higher scores. Learned counsel further submits that with only 32 marks, the petitioner scored lower than the last selected OH candidate, who obtained 48 marks, leading to his non-selection. Although vacancies for VH and HH categories remained unfilled, they couldn't be filled by OH candidates based on rules. He further contends that since JUVNL and its subsidiaries lacked provisions for exchanging reservation vacancies between VH, OH, or HH categories, vacancies from VH and HH were deferred to the next recruitment cycle. Although vacancies for VH and HH categories remained unfilled, they couldn't be filled by OH candidates based on rules. He further contends that since JUVNL and its subsidiaries lacked provisions for exchanging reservation vacancies between VH, OH, or HH categories, vacancies from VH and HH were deferred to the next recruitment cycle. Consequently, the petitioner, categorized as OH, could not fill VH or HH vacancies per established rules. Accordingly, he was not selected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that the respondent-JUVNL issued one employment notice being Employment Notice No. 03 of 2016 for various posts. The notice clearly indicated that specific experience would receive up to 15 additional marks and a maximum of 5 years age relaxation. The eligibility criteria were indicated in the employment notice. The petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid notice and after initial document verification he was shortlisted; however, the respondent-JUVNL invited objections regarding provisionally awarded experience and weightage marks and pursuant thereof objections were examined based on the documents submitted by the candidates. Pursuant thereto after addressing the objections received, list of candidates were published on the website and the results of qualified and disqualified candidates along with the final selection list were uploaded on the official website of the respondents. 8. From the documents it further transpires that the reservation to Physically Handicapped Persons (PHP) was applicable to the eligible candidates as per the Government of Jharkhand rules as mentioned in the advertisement. As per the rules, 3% reservation was applicable to Technical Staff. The total number of posts in the above-mentioned group was 493 (41+228+215+09) and 3% of this was reserved horizontally for the PH candidates which came as 15 in number. In this, 1% each was reserved for OH (Orthopedic Handicap), VH (Visually Handicap) & HH (Hearing Handicap) which came as 05 in number for each category. The petitioner being an OH candidate could not be selected as all the five (05) seats earmarked for OH candidates in the group Technical Staff was already filled by the candidates scoring more than the petitioner. Further, only 2 seats are filled out of 5 designated for VH candidates and none of the seats are filled under the HH category. The petitioner being an OH candidate could not be selected as all the five (05) seats earmarked for OH candidates in the group Technical Staff was already filled by the candidates scoring more than the petitioner. Further, only 2 seats are filled out of 5 designated for VH candidates and none of the seats are filled under the HH category. The petitioner scored only 32.00 marks in the recruitment process which is lower than the last selected candidate under the OH reservation category, hence he was not selected. 9. It is further evident from record that so far as the question of reservation is concerned; the seats of VH and HH categories in the said recruitment drive are not completely filled but they cannot be filled with candidates of OH category. The rule annexed by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit as Annexure-8 series is of the State Government, relevant point of PH of Chapter XXII Physically handicapped Persons is as follows: “3. The reservation of posts should be made separately for each of the aforesaid three categories of the physically handicapped persons but provision may be made for inter se exchange of vacancies if candidates belonging to a category persons are not available or if the nature of vacancies in an office is such that a given category of persons cannot be employed. If, in any year, the vacancies reserved for these categories are not filled, the reservations should be carried over for a period of upto three subsequent recruitment years.....” However, no such provision for inter se- exchange of reservation vacancies viz. VH to OH or vice versa is there in JUVNL or its subsidiary companies, therefore the vacancies belonging to the VH and HH categories have been carried forward to the next recruitment year. The petitioner being the OH category could not be accommodated under the VH or HH category as per rules mentioned above. 10. At this stage, it is also relevant to refer the contention of the petitioner stated at Para 6 and 7 of supplementary affidavit dated 04.10.2023. The petitioner being the OH category could not be accommodated under the VH or HH category as per rules mentioned above. 10. At this stage, it is also relevant to refer the contention of the petitioner stated at Para 6 and 7 of supplementary affidavit dated 04.10.2023. As per his averment in the employment notification vide Clause-8C, the provision of reservation for the physically handicapped has been illustrated and vide Clause-10, the provision of relaxation in age in case of physically handicapped persons to the extent of 40% or more have been provided, whereas the Petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 60%, but even then his case could not be considered by subjecting his case to discrimination with other similarly situated physically handicapped persons and on the basis of the total number of seats reserved for the physically handicapped persons to the extent of 12 in number, 05 have been appointed and for the category of Switch Board Operator persons, namely Karan Kumar Ram and Rajiv Kumar Singh has been appointed and still 3 posts for the category of physically handicapped persons are vacant. Further, in support of the aforesaid contention, the Petitioner has referred the copy of Resolution contained in Memo No. 5776 dated 10.10.2002 and also the resolution the Government of India as well as the copy of order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1681 of 2017. 11. In this regard, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner being an OH candidate could not be selected as all the five (05) seats earmarked for OH candidates in the group Technical Staff were already filled by the candidates scoring more than the petitioner. Further only 2 seats are filled out of 5 designated for VH candidates and none of the seats were filled under the HH category. Further, no provision for inter se- exchange of reservation vacancies viz. VH to OH or vice versa is there in JUVNL or its subsidiary companies, therefore the vacancies belonging to the VH and HH categories have been carried forward to the next recruitment year. The petitioner being the OH category could not be accommodated under the VH or HH category as per rules mentioned above. VH to OH or vice versa is there in JUVNL or its subsidiary companies, therefore the vacancies belonging to the VH and HH categories have been carried forward to the next recruitment year. The petitioner being the OH category could not be accommodated under the VH or HH category as per rules mentioned above. As stated hereinabove, the case of the petitioner was not considered in view of the fact that the petitioner has scored only 32 marks which is much lower than the marks of the last selected OH candidate with a score of 48 marks and as stated herein above since JUVNL and its subsidiaries lacked provisions for exchanging reservation vacancies between VH, OH, or HH categories, vacancies from VH and HH were deferred to the next recruitment cycle. Consequently, the petitioner, categorized as OH, could not fill VH or HH vacancies as per established rules. Accordingly, he was not selected. 12. Further, the petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence/facts to substantiate alleged significant irregularities and potential illegalities have been committed by the selection board. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to this petitioner and accordingly the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A. if any also stands disposed of.