1. Petitioner applied for the post of Constable in terms of an advertisement notice issued by the respondents in the year 1998. Petitioner applied from District Kathua by placing with the application form certificate of being a candidate of Scheduled Tribe category. The certificate annexed with the application form clearly depicted that his file for issuance of ST category certificate was under process. On the basis of the application form, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the physical and out door tests, however, when the respondents came to know that he is actually a resident of District Rajouri, he was not considered for selection, which has necessitated him to file the present writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that though he had initially appended "under-process certificate" issued by Naib Tehsildar Bani, of his belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, but subsequently he has obtained the said certificate from District Rajouri, and as such, he was eligible for selection. His further contention is that advertisement notice was not specified for any District. 3. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that since the petitioner had applied from Kathua District and on scrutiny of his documents, he was found to be belonging to Rajouri District, as such, his candidature was not considered for District Kathua. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Petitioner’s contention is that he had purchased some land in Tehsil Bani of Kathua District and as such, he applied for the category certificate to Tehsildar Bani. On issuance of "under process certificate" of ST category, he filled his application form from District Kathua, as such, being a nomad, he was entitled to be considered for appointment, but his rejection on this score was illegal and arbitrary. 6. The respondents, in their counter, have categorically taken a stand that though advertisement notice does not mention the posts being filled on District basis, but subsequent to issuance of the notification, another notification was issued whereby the District Recruitment Boards were constituted, which were to be headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police of the concerned police zones. Their further contention is that since the petitioner actually belonged to District Rajouri, his case could not have been considered for Kathua District, because of the fact that he did not belong to that District. Their further contention is that since the petitioner actually belonged to District Rajouri, his case could not have been considered for Kathua District, because of the fact that he did not belong to that District. It is further stated that since the petitioner, even after appearing in the physical and out door tests, was not able to submit his category certificate, as such, he was not considered for selection. 7. The plea of the petitioner that being a nomad he was entitled to apply from District Kathua, cannot be accepted for the reason that, petitioner was not having bonafide intentions from the date of filing of his application form itself. In case he was a resident of Tehsil Bani, he could have obtained all the certificates from that Tehsil and applied for the post. In order to take the benefit of reservation, he has managed the category certificate from Tehsil Bani despite the fact that he could have obtained the said certificate from District Rajouri also. He has thereafter obtained his category certificate from District Rajouri, which was not produced before the respondents, meaning thereby that he is resident of District Rajouri. As the selection was made on the District level basis, the case of the petitioner could not have been considered for another district to which he does not belong at all. In other words, the petitioner has applied in one District by placing on record the State Subject Certificate of the other District. 8. Moreover the selection dates back to 1998 and the same has been challenged by the petitioner in the year 2002, which is clearly barred by laches. The reason indicated by the petitioner is not a ground for entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. Moreso when the petitioner has not participated in the selection process and has not challenged the action of the respondents at the time when his candidature was not considered. 9. The writ petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.