VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus, thereby directing respondent no.1 i.e. the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to one of the Central Police Organisations i.e. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) or the Border Security Force (BSF) as per the preference exercised by him in his application submitted in response to public notice published, inter alia, in Employment News of 18-24.08.2007 to fill up posts of Sub Inspectors in various Central Police Organisations, and for a direction that respondent no.2 i.e. the CRPF should appoint him as a Sub-Inspector.

2. The petitioner initially joined as R.II(Constable/GD) in the CRPF as an OBC category candidate at Group Centre, CRPF, Ajmer, Rajasthan on 2.8.1995 and was allotted Force No.951222106. His service as R.II (Constable/GD) was confirmed after completion of training and probation w.e.f. 11.09.1997. He joined the services of the National Security Guard (NSG) on deputation w.e.f.15.03.2004 and is presently posted in 12 SRG, NSG Training Centre, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. He submits that while in service, in the year 2006 respondent no.2 applied as a departmental candidate for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (SI/GD). He emphasizes that he applied as a candidate belonging to the OBC category and his candidature as an OBC candidate was entertained by respondent no.2. However, it appears, he did not qualify in the said departmental examination.

3. The dispute in the present case has arisen as, even though the petitioner is undoubtedly an OBC candidate who does not fall within the creamy layer and is more meritorious than the last OBC candidate selected by SSC for the post of Sub-Inspector in the selection process in question, he has not been selected because the OBC certificate submitted by him was not in the prescribed format and he had not submitted the requisite OBC certificate. The respondents, therefore, treated the petitioner as a general category candidate and did not select him as he did not make the cut as a general category candidate.

4. Respondent no.1 issued a public notice inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organisations by holding an open competitive examination on All India basis. The said advertisement was published, inter alia, in the Employment News of 18-24.08.2007. The closing date for submission of applications was 14.09.2007. The following number of vacancies in the various Central Police Organisations reserved for the other backward classes were notified in this notice:

Sl. No. Name of the Force No. of Reserved seats for OBC candidates

1. BSF 136

2. CRPF 144

3. CISF Male 120

Female 12

4. ITBP 61

5. SSB 73

5. Under clause 4(B), a note was appended, which is relevant for our purpose, and the same reads as follows:-

"NOTE: The closing date for receipt of application will be treated as the date of reckoning for OBC status of the candidate and also, for assuming that the candidate does not fall in the creamy layer.

The candidate should furnish the relevant OBC Certificate in the format prescribed for Central Government jobs as per Annexure-VIII issued by the competent authority on or before the Closing Date stipulated in the Notice. OBC Certificate obtained otherwise than the prescribed certificate meant for Central Government jobs will not be considered for seeking relaxation/reservation whatsoever".

6. Under clause 4(D) (ii), relaxation in age limit was admissible to departmental candidates who have rendered not less than three years continuous and regular service as on 14.09.2007. For Sub-Inspectors serving in CRPF, the upper age limit was 40 years for the general candidates; 45 years for SC/ST category candidates; and 43 years for OBCs. Clause 4(E), which dea