ORDER : The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable as he belongs to non-Home Guard scheduled caste category. Factual Matrix 2. There was an advertisement for appointment of 100 police constables issued by the State of Jharkhand in view of the recommendation of the Commandant of Jharkhand Armed Police, Lesliganj, Palamau. The petitioner being duly eligible for appointment on the post of constable, applied for the same having requisite qualification. As per advertisement, the petitioner appeared in the written test as well as physical and other test required for appointment for police constable. The petitioner was declared duly qualified in all the events and was declared successful. 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that he has obtained 30 marks in the category of non-Home Guard scheduled caste. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was duly qualified in all the events and was declared successful, yet no appointment letters have been issued to him. The petitioner made several representation before the authorities even sought information under the Right to Information Act but the respondent did not pay any heed to his representation and hence this writ petition has been preferred. 5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that as the petitioner was declared successful in all the events and has obtained 30 marks he ought to have been appointed on the post of police constable. 6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Counsel further argues that till date the appointments have not been finalized neither results have been published and still there are vacancies and as such the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment on the post of police constable. 7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 8. Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj, J.C. to A.G. vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 9. Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned Counsel argues that though the petitioner has qualified in all the events and was declared successful. But after being declared successful a merit list is prepared and candidates, who are placed higher in the merit list are considered for appointment on the post of police constable on the basis of number of vacancies under different categories. Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned Counsel argues that though the petitioner has qualified in all the events and was declared successful. But after being declared successful a merit list is prepared and candidates, who are placed higher in the merit list are considered for appointment on the post of police constable on the basis of number of vacancies under different categories. In case of non-Home Guard scheduled castes category in which petitioner falls, the marks obtained by the last selected candidate was 33 whereas petitioner has obtained only 30 marks and as such there was no question of appointment or consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of police constable. 10. Learned Counsel further argued that advertisement is of 2011 and we are in 2017. Even the appointments done by the Home Department have been closed. Now the appointments are done by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and as such even if vacancies were there in 2011 no direction could be issued to the Home Department as the appointments are being done by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 11. It has also been argued that the ground taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though he applied under Right to Information Act seeking details of the appointment but the same has not been done is not tenable as it appears from Annexure-4 dated 1.3.2016 that sufficient cause has been mentioned and it has been clearly mentioned that the last selected candidate under non-Home Guard had obtained 33 marks. 12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for appointment on the post of police constable. In view of the admitted fact that the last selected candidate in the non-Home Guard scheduled castes category has obtained 33 marks whereas petitioner has obtained only 30 marks, no direction can be given for appointment on the post of police constable. I find no illegality and infirmity in non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of constable. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal.