R.Banumathi, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.9.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.75 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant for consideration of her case for appointment to the post of Drawing Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute under the Labour, Employment & Training Department , Government of Jharkhand in terms of Advertisement No.50 dated 8.9.2009.

2. The Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board vide Advertisement no. 50 dated 8.9.2009 advertised several posts of Instructors in various trades and in the said advertisement 24 posts of Drawing Instructors were advertised. The examination was held on 18.7.2010 and the result of the successful candidates was published in which the appellant secured 34 marks as per the result of the JCECE Board and was placed at the CML Rank no.34/01.

3.The grievance of the appellant is that even though the appellant was shown to have secured 34 marks and she has ranked 1st among the women candidates, the Board did not permit the appellant to participate in counselling without assigning any reason. The appellant filed representation dated 29.11.2010 before the respondents-authorities that she has not been permitted to appear in the interview and she requested to allow her to appear in the interview; but to no effect. The petitioner then preferred W.P.(S) No. 75 of 2013, seeking direction to appoint her on the post of Drawing Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute under Labour, Employment & Training Department, Government of Jharkhand in terms of Advertisement No.50 dated 8.9.2009. The writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court on the ground that the appellant was shown as 34th rank in the general category and the persons upto 14th rank were only appointed in the said category and at this stage the appellant cannot seek any reservation for women category, which is not in terms of the advertisement.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Mr.Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the appellant had been declared first under women category but even then she has not been appointed to the post for the reasons best known to the respondents. It was further submitted that as per the Reservation Policy of the State Government a specific provision has been made, providing 5% reservation to the women candidates in each category by giving them the benefit of reservation and as per the Reservation Policy prevalent in the State of Jharkhand, the appellant even though belong to the general category is entitled to get the benefit of reservation to the extent of 5%, since the appellant has been placed at serial no.1 in the women category under the ‘general category’.

6. Mr.Rajesh Kumar, learned G.P.V appearing for the State of Jharkhand, submitted that the candidates upto rank 14 in general category only have been called for counseling and the appellant was much below than those who have been called for counselling under the general category and, therefore the appellant was not called for interview. The learned counsel further submitted that the appointment process has already been completed in accordance with law and it is settled law that the panel prepared for appointment cannot survive for years to years and the claim of the appellant seeking appointment is not sustainable.

7. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and carefully perused the order of the learned Single Judge and other materials on record.

8. The Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board vide Advertisement no. 50 dated 8.9.2009 advertised several posts of Instructors in various trades and in the said advertisement 24 posts of Drawing Instructors were advertised. For the purpose of appointment, a selection committee has been constituted. According to the respondents, due to non completi