JUDGMENT: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment/recruitment/enrolment letter to the petitioner on the post of Constable (G.D.) against advertisement No. CT(G.D.)/1/03. 3. The petitioner's case in brief is that in response to the aforementioned advertisement, he had submitted his application. He was called upon to appear at the written examination and admit card was also issued to him. He appeared at the requisite examinations both written as well as physical tests and was declared successful by the concerned authorities. The petitioner's grievance is that inspite of being declared successful at the tests, he has not been granted the letter of appointment. he further grievance of the petitioner is that at a subsequent examination conducted by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted his fresh application and in response to which, he was given a fresh admit card calling him to appear at the examination but later, the admit card was snatched away from him and he was not allowed to sit at the examination on the ground that in the earlier examination, he was declared successful. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents explaining therein that though the petitioner had appeared at the written and physical tests and was declared successful at the examinations but later, as required, he was forwarded for his medical examination by the Medical Board along with several other candidates. The Medical Board did not find the petitioner medically fit and as such, considering the fact that the petitioner was not found medically fit, he could not possibly be appointed on the post of constable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a list of as many as 256 candidates was issued by the Medical Board who were found medically unfit and the petitioner's name transpire at Sl. No. 239. Learned counsel adds further that the entries made by the Medical Board in respect of the results of the medical examination, were made in the register on which each of the candidates had put his signature. However, since as per rules, such register and documents are not supposed to be retained for more than three months, therefore, the register was destroyed. 6. However, since as per rules, such register and documents are not supposed to be retained for more than three months, therefore, the register was destroyed. 6. From the rival submissions, as it appears, though the petitioner had appeared at the written and physical tests and was found successful, but he was declared unfit medically. Merely because of the fact that the petitioner had qualified in the written and physical tests, he does not acquire any right to claim appointment unless he satisfies the concerned authorities in respect of the other eligibility criteria. 7. Furthermore, as it appears from the counter affidavit of the respondents, the petitioner's contention that he was not allowed to sit at the subsequent examination has been firmly denied by the respondents. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioner would however be at liberty to submit his application in response to any fresh advertisement issued by the concerned authorities of the respondents for filling up the vacancies on the post of constable.