ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.1.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 14500 of 2012. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has come up in this appeal. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are:

The Export Inspection Council of India functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India invited applications for the post of Laboratory Assistant Grade II by Exhibit P1 advertisement. The advertisement mentioned three vacancies (OBC-1 & General-2). The petitioner belongs to Dheevara community, which is one of the Other Backward Classes. The petitioner was over aged and as per relaxation granted to OBC category candidates, the petitioner submitted application in response to the advertisement. Under the criteria fixed for the selection, 70% marks were fixed as cut off marks for final selection. Only four candidates belonging to OBC category could secure 70 out of 100 marks, hence rank list of four OBC candidates was published, in which the petitioner is serial No. 3. The four OBC candidates, who were included in the rank list, were above the normal age limit, i.e. 18 to 25 and they participated in the selection on account of relaxation of age granted to OBC candidates. Out of the general category candidates, four candidates were qualified for interview, but none could achieve the minimum marks, hence no candidate from the general category could be selected. In the rank list the first candidate Serena Joseph (OBC) was issued appointment letter, there being only one vacancy for OBC. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition claiming that she is entitled for appointment against the general vacancies, which remains unfilled. The following prayers were made in the Writ Petition:

(i) To declare that the denial of appointment to the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant under the respondents is violative of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(i)(a) To declare that Exhibit P1 is not binding upon the petitioner and respondents in view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of Utter Pradesh and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 119.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately issue an order of appointment to the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant under the respondents to which she has been selected pursuant to a test and an interview conducted thereafter and ranked No. 3 and vacancies exist to make appointment."

2. Counter affidavit dated 25.7.2012 and counter affidavit to the amended Writ Petition dated 28.1.2013 have been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it was pleaded that the prescribed age limit for the general category is 18 to 25, while for the OBC candidates, there was relaxation of three years. The petitioner was over aged for general category and could appear in the selection availing the relaxation provided for OBC 70 out of 100 marks was fixed as cut off mark for selection. Only four OBC category candidates could secure more than 70 marks, who were included in the rank list in which the petitioner was serial No. 3. All the OBC candidates, who were included in the rank list were the candidates who availed the benefit of age relaxation. Although four general category candidates were qualified for interview, no one secured 70 marks. As per O.M. No. 36011/1/98-Estt.(Res.) dated 1.7.1998, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates etc. the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for conside