JUDGMENT Petitioner appellants, who are two in number, are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 18.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16602 of 2016 wherein the request of petitioner appellants to quash the entire select list has been turned down. 2. Sri Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner appellants, submitted that fair treatment has not at all been extended to the petitioner appellants and without any lawful foundation and basis the writ petition in question has been dismissed whereas reasonable opportunity ought to have been provided for impleading the selected candidates and then the order could have been passed on merits. 3. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that cogent reasons have been given by the learned Single Judge for not entertaining the writ petition in question and the said cogent reasons are (i) there is delay in making the challenge (ii) opportunity has been provided for to file objections by 31.3.2015 against the selection, so made and at no point of time the said opportunity in question has been availed and (iii) none of the selected candidates have been impleaded as party. 4. We have proceeded to examine the order in question passed by the learned Single Judge in the light of the arguments, that have been so advanced, and what we find in the present case is that selection process, that has commenced, has been pursuant to the advertisement published by the Staff Selection Commission dated 5.2.2011 inviting applications for the appointment on the post of Constables (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB. Petitioner appellants also claimed to have applied in pursuance of the said advertisement and this is accepted position that they have not been declared successful. This much is also clear that said selection has been subject matter of challenge and, inasmuch as, various candidates claimed that due to human error they could not fill up the column No. 17 in the form in question and they left it blank, which requires the preference of candidates for the different units of paramilitary forces and, in view of this, placement has not been accorded to them and, as such, petition was filed before the Delhi High Court and Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 12532 of 2013 and 3110 of 2014 (Deepak Kumar Singh and others v. Union of India and others) on 6.5.2014 gave opportunity to the incumbents to give their preference and in case their marks are equal or higher than the selected candidates, then they should also be appointed subject to their undertakings that they will not claim any seniority and some other conditions mentioned in the order of the Delhi High Court. 5. This much is clear that all those incumbents, who have any grievance, have proceeded to represent and their grievances in question have been redressed and not only this even open offer has been given to the candidates, who had any grievance qua the selection, they should also represent. Accepted position is that as far as petitioner appellants are concerned, they have not proceeded to raise their grievance and thus in relation to them the chapter stood closed. This much is also clear that, thereafter, various incumbents once again proceeded to approach the Delhi High Court and Delhi High Court on 7.9.2015 has proceeded to non-suit the challenge, so made, on the ground of latches. As far as petitioner appellants are concerned, they are much more late, inasmuch as, they are before this Court in the year 2016 and then, at the said point of time, learned Single Judge has proceeded to follow the Delhi High Court judgment and has also proceeds to make note of the fact that the opportunity, that has been provided for, has not been availed and in addition to the same as petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in view of this, learned Single Judge has refused to accord any relief to the petitioner appellants. Once all these three grounds, mentioned above, are valid and sustainable grounds, we also refuse to entertain the present special appeal. Special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.