Order Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 21.1.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2665/2008 by which the petitioner's petition was found to have no merit. However, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that if the respondent authorities proposes to issue fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant posts, then they may also consider the desirability of making appropriate provision for relaxation of age in respect of those candidates who had applied for and were found successful in the written tests pursuant to the earlier advertisement of 2005, if such candidates file fresh applications, if any. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the written test was conducted and the petitioners were declared successful in that written examination which was conducted on 7.5.2006. Thereafter, a typing test was• also held from 26.3.2007 to 29.3.2007. The petitioners appeared in the typing test but thereafter, final result was not declared by the respondent authority. However, instead of declaring the result and giving appointment to the selected candidates the respondents published an advertisement declaring the selection process in question cancelled and fresh applications were invited for the posts. 4. Accordingly to the learned counsel for the appellants, once the selection process has started and there was no fault on the part of the candidates and there was no irregularity in conducting the examination and even if the contention of' the respondent is accepted then before conducting the typing test the Selection Committee should have been constituted which have not been constituted in terms of any provision of law then from that point of time only the selection process should have been started afresh. Substantially meaning thereby that at the most in factual situation if Selection Committee was not constituted for holding the typing test that typing test should have been 'taken afresh but entire selection process should not have been cancelled. 5. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge relied upon Rule 863(b) of the Police Manual which has no application to the present case. 6. 5. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge relied upon Rule 863(b) of the Police Manual which has no application to the present case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the Appendix-51 of the Police Manual where it has been provided that so far as written examination is concerned that was required to be conducted only by the concerned range D.I.G. and only for the purpose of typing test constitution of Board is required. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant with the help of the Appendix-72 and entry no. 3 stated that in view of this entry no. 3 as mentioned in column No.3 also for technical branches the Selection Board is required to be constituted but that is required to be constituted only for the purpose of typing test and for the purpose of technical interview. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr. reported in (2003)7 S.C.C. 285 [: 2003(4) JLJR (SC)229] wherein even in a case where there were allegations of irregularities and illegalities in the process of selection the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the persons who have been selected without there being any illegality or irregularity their examination should not have been cancelled. 9. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the facts of the case. Undisputedly the process of selection for the post of Lower Division Clerk was initiated by publishing advertisement on 21.4.2005 and thereafter the written examination was held on 7.5.2006. The result of the written examination was published in the month of March, 2007 then the petitioners succeeded in the said writ. ten examination and were called upon to appear for typing test. They appeared in the typing test but final results were not declared. At this stage the selection process was cancelled by the respondent on the ground that Selection Board should have been constituted which has not been constituted. 10. ten examination and were called upon to appear for typing test. They appeared in the typing test but final results were not declared. At this stage the selection process was cancelled by the respondent on the ground that Selection Board should have been constituted which has not been constituted. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to Rule 863(b) and submitted that in view of the said Rule the process should have been completed as per Appendix-51 and since it is mentioned in the said Appendix-51 itself that written test will be held by the D.I.G. Range, fresh selection process should have been completed by the D.I.G. Range as mentioned in Rule 863(b) given in chapter 27 but we are of the considered view that in the present case the fact is entirely different which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr. (supra). In the said case process of selection was completed, results were declared. In the present case selection process has not been completed and the results have not been declared therefore, it is not known that whether petitioners stand in merit or not and admittedly typing test was conducted without constituting the Board as provided in Appendix-72. In view of the above reason, the appellants have not acquired any right to seek any direction against the respondents to declare the result for the process which according to the Rule was not correct and legal. 11. In that factual situation, if the process of selection started in the year 2005 and completed the examination stage only up to the year 2007, therefore, we do not find at this stage the petitioner-appellant can now get any relief as they have no legal right merely on the basis of passing in the written examination for seeking direction for declaration of the result of the typing test which admittedly is not according to Rule. 12. However, the learned Single Judge has made some observation in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention towards the subsequent advertisement which was cancelled by the respondent themselves. 12. However, the learned Single Judge has made some observation in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention towards the subsequent advertisement which was cancelled by the respondent themselves. However, the reasons for that cancellation is not given but that does not make any difference because if the respondents themselves have issued fresh advertisement for giving appointment to the said post and they have withdrawn, it cannot help any. 13. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the present L.P.A. which is accordingly dismissed.