JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the decision taken by the respondents dated 02.12.2009, whereby the petitioner has been informed that his application for appointment in Jharkhand Police has been rejected on the ground that he had not attached the certificate of being a member of Jharkhand Home Guard. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a member of Jharkhand Home Guard and he working on the said post. He has been allotted Sr. No. 14030, which is evident from ID Card issued by the District Commandant of Jharkhand Home Guard. After completion of his training as a Home Guard, a certificate was issued to him to that effect by the concerned Department. In pursuant to the Advt. No. 01/2004, the petitioner applied for the district of Lohardaga for appointment on the post of Police Constable and he has been allotted Roll No. 5938. It is further stated that the petitioner participated in the selection process but he was surprised to know that his selection has not been made in Jharkhand Police. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that although in his application petitioner had given information that he is a member of Jharkhand Home Guard but the same has not been taken into consideration as a result of which, petitioner had been treated as general candidate and therefore, could not secure selection. Finally, the petitioner was issued memo No. 181 dated 02.12.2009 under the signature of respondent No. 5, whereby he was informed that he has not been selected on the ground that he has not submitted the certificate of Home Guard. In view of his non-selection, petitioner made representation before the respondent-authorities vide representation dated 23.12.2009 but no orders were passed on his aforesaid representation. 5. As no action was taken by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner filed an application dated 05.01.2010 under Right to Information Act. It is the case of the petitioner that in reply to his application dated 05.01.2010, he was served with the photocopy of his original application, which goes to show that the petitioner in Column No. 10 of his application, has mentioned his Home Guard’s Sl. It is the case of the petitioner that in reply to his application dated 05.01.2010, he was served with the photocopy of his original application, which goes to show that the petitioner in Column No. 10 of his application, has mentioned his Home Guard’s Sl. No. 14030 (Lohardaga), to show that he was a member of Home Guard but no consideration was made for appointment of the petitioner and as such, this writ petition has been preferred for redressal of his grievances. 6. Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the case of the petitioner has been rejected illegally and arbitrarily. The respondents ought to have consider the case of the petitioner as he had qualified for the same and he has mentioned in his application form itself that he was a member of the Home Guard. In view of that, petitioner deserves to be appointed on the post of Police Constable. 7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. V.K. Roy, JC to SC-IV, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned and submits as no ground has been made out for appointment on the post of Police Constable and merely mentioning that he was a member of Home Guard, does not prove that the petitioner was a member of Home Guard and also in view of the fact that appointments arising out of Adv. No. 01/2004 has already come to an end in the year 2010 itself and as such, there is no illegality in rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that process of appointments with respect to Advt. No. 01/2004 has already been closed in the year 2010 and thereafter, for the last seven years, several advertisements were floated after Advt. No. 01/2004 and as such, no right accrues to the petitioner. 9. Needless to say that a person claiming the benefits of reserved category must have to prove that he belongs to a reserved category. No. 01/2004 has already been closed in the year 2010 and thereafter, for the last seven years, several advertisements were floated after Advt. No. 01/2004 and as such, no right accrues to the petitioner. 9. Needless to say that a person claiming the benefits of reserved category must have to prove that he belongs to a reserved category. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to prove that he is a member of Home Guard and as such, the same could not have been considered and his case has rightly been rejected by the respondent-authorities. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.