Judgment :- (PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent herein passed in O.A.No.4705 of 2001 dated 30.06.2003 and quash the same and direct the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1998 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.) P.Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 30.06.2003 passed in O.A.No.4705 of 2001, upholding the rejection of his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared for selection to the post of Sub Inspector in the year 1998. Though he was successful in all the tests, when he was sent to Medical Examination, it was found that he is suffering from an eye defect, namely, squint eye. Therefore, he was informed that he is not medically fit for the post. Based on the said opinion, the request of the applicant was rejected, hence he filed Original Application No.4705 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the opinion of the Medical Board and finding that he is not medically fit to hold the post at the relevant time, dismissed his application; hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on two earlier occasions, the petitioner was found fit, only in the third examination, the very same Medical Board declared that he was unfit due to squint eye and having defective vision upto fifteen degrees. He also contended that the Department is not justified in taking longer time in referring his case before the Medical Board. 5. We have gone through the materials placed and the order impugned. 6. It is not in dispute that at the time of consideration of his claim, the opinion of the Medical Board was that he is not fit and having squint eyes. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner was rightly not considered by the Department and rejected by the Tribunal. 6. It is not in dispute that at the time of consideration of his claim, the opinion of the Medical Board was that he is not fit and having squint eyes. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner was rightly not considered by the Department and rejected by the Tribunal. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the present examination shows that there is no defect in his eyes, which cannot be accepted, since we are concerned with his position of eyes at the time of selection. Apart from this, even though, the Tribunal has rejected his application as early as on 30.06.2003, admittedly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition only in the month of November 2005. Though it is stated that the copy of the impugned order of the Tribunal was not communicated to him by the counsel, the fact remains that he approached this court only after a period of two years. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any error or infirmity and valid ground for interference; hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.