JUDGMENT : RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition survives only for petitioner No. 1 with regard to his claim for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector, Executive Wing in the J&K Police. The writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners 2 and 3 was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.05.2014. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the department advertised the vacancies of Sub Inspectors in Executive Wing on 31.01.2009. The petitioner was one of the candidate. In the process of selection, he had secured 62 marks. Several candidates being aggrieved of the process of selection had filed writ petitions in this Court. A bunch of writ petitions was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed with lead case as SWP No. 1112/2010, titled as Shoukat Noor and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir through Financial Commissioner and others. The writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, 37 vacancies, which were kept reserved vide interim orders in different writ petitions were released. The selection process for the remaining posts had been completed earlier. The department was required to fill up the aforesaid 37 vacancies. After the judgment of this Court only 14 out of 37 vacancies were filled up. The last selected candidate had secured 62.5 marks. As the petitioner had secured 62 marks, his candidature should also have been considered while filling up the rest of the posts. He further submitted that the posts are still available with the department as in the year 2016 the selection process was started again, which is complete, however, the appointment letters are still to be issued. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that after a bunch of writ petitions challenging the selection process, were dismissed on 03.05.2012, 37 posts which were reserved became available. 14 of them were filled up. The last selected candidates had secured 62.5 marks. The petitioner admittedly had secured 62 marks. The remaining posts were not filled up which were made part of the selection process for the year 2016, which has now been completed. Only appointment letters are to be issued after character verification. In view of these facts, the petitioner cannot claim consideration of his candidature for the vacancies advertised way back in the year 2009, specifically when there is none below the petitioner in merit, who has been selected. Only appointment letters are to be issued after character verification. In view of these facts, the petitioner cannot claim consideration of his candidature for the vacancies advertised way back in the year 2009, specifically when there is none below the petitioner in merit, who has been selected. As admittedly the last selected candidate had secured 62.5 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured only 62 marks. There are many candidates above the petitioner who have secured marks more than 62 marks up to 62.5. None of the other candidate had raised any grievance. It is not that only the petitioner can be considered. The department can always decide as to how much vacancies are to be filled up at any stage. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 5. In the case in hand, the department advertised vacancies of Sub-Inspectors, Executive Wing in the Police Department on 31.01.2009. The process was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions filed in this Court. The same were dismissed vide detailed judgment in Shoukat Noor and other's case (supra). Vide interim orders passed in different writ petitions, 37 vacancies were kept reserved for the petitioners therein. As a result of dismissal of the writ petitions, those vacancies become available to be filled up. Out of 37 vacancies the department had filled up 14 vacancies and 23 remained vacant. The last selected candidate had secured 62.5 marks, whereas the marks secured by the petitioner were 62. Hence, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had secured marks more than the last selected candidate, hence, he deserves to be appointed. His only prayer is that the vacancies being available, even if he had secured marks less than the last selected candidate, his candidature should also have been considered. However, there is no merit in the claim raised. The process was initiated way back in the year, 2009. On account of pendency of writ petitions in this Court, it remained on hold. After the dismissal of the writ petitions, the department appointed 14 candidates, considering their merit and decided not to fill up the rest of the posts. Even while filling up 14 posts the merit had to be brought down from 63 marks to 62.5 marks. 63 marks was the initial cut off in the process of selection. After the dismissal of the writ petitions, the department appointed 14 candidates, considering their merit and decided not to fill up the rest of the posts. Even while filling up 14 posts the merit had to be brought down from 63 marks to 62.5 marks. 63 marks was the initial cut off in the process of selection. The action of the official respondents in not filling up the other posts while bringing down the merit further cannot be said to be erroneous as there is no allegation of mala fide or otherwise leveled by the petitioner. In the selection process initiated in the year, 2016 all the vacant posts were taken into consideration. The process is now complete. Only appointment orders are to be issued after character verification of the selected candidates. Petitioner, instead of seeking relief in the process of selection, which was already over, could have very well competed in the process of selection which was initiated in the year, 2016. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.