JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for appointment on the post of police constable in Advertisement no. 1/2004. Factual Matrix: 2. An advertisement was floated by the Home Department of the State Government as Advertisement no. 1/2004 for appointment on the post of police constable. The petitioner having found himself eligible for the same applied and submitted his all certificates and after scrutiny an admit card was issued to him. It is specific case of the petitioner that he appeared in the said post and after qualifying in all the events he was declared successful and the results was published where his roll no. figured in the published result as Roll no. 315 of Chatra as the petitioner though declared successful but was not appointed on the post of Police Constable. Hence, he has now preferred this writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey argues that though the petitioner was declared successful and his name being placed in the list of successful candidates he has not been appointed on the post of police constable nor any offer of appointment was given to him. Learned counsel submits that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of petitioner and as such in view of the fact that petitioner has been declared successful a direction may be given to the respondent-state to appoint the petitioner on the post of police constable after offering him an appointment letter. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for respondents, J.C. to S.C. IV, Vishal Kumar Ray vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ray draws the attention of the court towards paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit and argues that after scrutiny of the case it was found that petitioner belonged to O.B.C. Non Home Guard category and had obtained only 14 points and his height was 171 cm whereas the cut off marks of the last selected candidate on the post in the category of O.B.C. Non Home Guard category was 17 points. As the petitioner did not fulfill the required criteria for appointment on the post and his case did not fall within the zone of consideration, his case was rightly not considered. As the petitioner did not fulfill the required criteria for appointment on the post and his case did not fall within the zone of consideration, his case was rightly not considered. Learned counsel draws the attention of the court to Annexure-A, page 18 and submits that already by a decision of the State Government the appointment arisen out of Advertisement no. 01/2004 have been closed as back as in 2010 itself and as such petitioner cannot claim any appointment on the post of Police Constable in view of the said advertisement. 5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the respondents there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The advertisement was of 2004, the appointment is being claimed in 2017 after 13 long years. The petitioner has not even qualified to be appointed for the post of police constable as the cut off points for appointment was 17 and petitioner has scored only 14 points. No direction can be given to the State Government for appointment though the petitioner claimed to be qualified. As at present the appointments on police constables are being done by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, no direction can be given to the Home Department for consideration of this case. 6. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Resultantly the writ petition stands dismissed. 7. All I.A. disposed of.