Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable against the available vacancy for the year 2000 – 2001. 2. The writ petition as framed is not competent, as this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the available vacancy. This Court can only issue direction to consider the case of eligible person as and when vacancy is advertised and the applicant is denied the right of consideration illegally, but the prayer made in this writ petition cannot be allowed. 3. The petitioner in fact is aggrieved by non consideration of his case for appointment, inspite of selection and medical examination. Therefore, the remedy with the petitioner was to challenge the selection, by making out a case for his appointment in preference to selected candidates. 4. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable in the year 2000-2001. The petitioner after being successful in the physical fitness test, was allowed to write written test. The petitioner was successful in the written test, and was subjected to medical examination. 5. The petitioner had applied for appointment against the post reserved for backward class. The petitioner submits that in addition to his claim for appointment to the post reserved for backward class, he was also entitled to be considered for appointment against 10% vacancies reserved for wards of Police personnel. 6. The submission of the petitioner cannot be taken note of, as the petitioner has not placed on record any material showing that 10% of posts were reserved for wards of police personnel. Rather, it is admitted by the petitioner that he had applied for appointment in backward class and not against the 10% posts said to be reserved for wards of police personnel. 7. In the counter filed, the stand of the respondents is, that the petitioner was not given appointment, as he did not come in merit for selection. The petitioner secured only 67 marks, whereas last candidate selected in the category of backward class had secured 71.5 marks. 7. In the counter filed, the stand of the respondents is, that the petitioner was not given appointment, as he did not come in merit for selection. The petitioner secured only 67 marks, whereas last candidate selected in the category of backward class had secured 71.5 marks. It is also the stand in the counter that there was no posts reserved for wards of police personnel against which the petitioner could be considered. The stand in the counter shows that no fault an be found with the action of the respondents in offering appointment to the petitioner. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition besides being incompetent, deserves to be dismissed even on merit, as the petitioner has no right to claim appointment, as he was not in merit for appointment. No merit. "Dismissed." No cost.