JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for appointment on the post of Lady Constable pursuant to Advt. No. 01/2004 under Backward Class Category, as she had qualified in every tests successfully in the said examination. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Pursuant to the Advt. No. 01/2004, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Police Constable. After fulfilling all the eligibility criteria, she applied for appointment annexing all the required documents and after perusal of the same, the petitioner was asked to appear in the said examination and she was allotted Roll No. 891. The petitioner after appearing in the said examination, was found to be successful in all the events. It has been stated that after being declared successful, the results were published and petitioner’s roll number also figured in the published results, which is evident from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after being declared successful when her roll number figured in the list of selected candidates, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the respondent No. 4 on 11.03.2010. It has been further stated that on receipt of the said letter, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 4 but neither any orders were passed nor any offer of appointment was extended to the petitioner and the petitioner was kept on waiting for appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed several representation for considering her case but the same was not considered and hence, this writ application has been preferred for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing the for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner qualified in all the events and was declared successful and her name also found place in the list of successful candidates, yet the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not offered letter of appointment to her. Learned counsel further argues that it was at the behest of the respondents that she submitted all the original documents but the same was not considered and till date no order has been passed for appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly prays that a direction be given to the respondents for consideration of her case for appointment as she has qualified in all the tests. 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Learned counsel accordingly prays that a direction be given to the respondents for consideration of her case for appointment as she has qualified in all the tests. 5. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Nilam Tiwary, learned JC to Sr. SC-I vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was never declared successful in the examination. The petitioner only secured 13 marks whereas the last selected candidate obtained 14 marks and as such, the petitioner could not be appointed on the post of Police Constable and as such, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no appointment can be done from the Advt. No. 1/04. There was a policy decision of the State Govt. to stop any appointments from Advt. No. 1/04 and the said appointments were closed by the policy decision. As on date, the appointments are being done by Staff Selection Commission and hence, no direction can be given to the respondent-Home Department for appointment of the petitioner on the post of lady constable and also in view of the fact that the petitioner had obtained less marks, she could not be appointed on the post of lady constable. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and legal propositions, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.