1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners initial thrust against his non-selection as a constable in Railway protection Force was a discrepancy which cropped in the English advertisement visa-vis in Hindi advertisement both published in the Employment News and Rojgar Samachar respectively.

3. In the Employment News it was categorically stated that special drive to fill up these posts were taken by the respondents authorities of three categories i.e. S.C. S.T. and O.B.C. However in Hindi version instead of "Ati Pichra Barg" "Atyant Pichra Barg" was published.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to E.B.C. category and by recruiting candidates of O.B.C. the authorities have violated their own advertisement. To clarify the position this Court directed the respondent Railways to file counter affidavit. The Railways in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that under the Central Act reservations are only provided for S.C. S.T. and O.B.C. people only. There is no provision of reservation of E.B.C. i.e. Extremely Backward Class. They further contend that Hindi version of the advertisement itself carries a clause that in case of any