JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for appointment on the post of Mahila Constable. 2. The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No.01 of 2004 for appointment on the post of Mahila Constable, the petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner has undergone the process of selection. The petitioner has been intimated vide letter dated 17.06.2005 that she has been selected and was directed to produce the relevant documents for verification. The petitioner appeared and produced all the certificates. Since the letter of appointment was not issued to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted several representations and the last representation submitted by the petitioner is vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Due to inaction on the part of the respondents and being aggrieved by non-appointment on the post of Mahila Constable, the petitioner having no alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on the post in question, amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reasons assigned by the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for selection to the post in question, is an outcome of arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the highhandedness of the respondents can be evident from the fact that in spite submission of original certificates, the same has not been returned to the petitioner even after several approaches. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Mahila Constable and she was called to appear in physical test. Her height was found 159 cm. Her educational qualification is I.A. Thus she was given 13 marks in the test. Again she was asked to appear before the Selection Board in the month of June 2005. She appeared before the Board again. Her height was found 159 cm. Her educational qualification is I.A. Thus she was given 13 marks in the test. Again she was asked to appear before the Selection Board in the month of June 2005. She appeared before the Board again. Her educational certificate was perused which shows that she is I.A pass, but at the time of measurement of height she was found 158 cm. Thus she was given 12 marks instead of 13 marks. Due to the aforesaid reasons, she has not been selected on the post of Mahila Constable as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State has assiduously submitted that in view of the reasons stated in the counter affidavit, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality on the part of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the selection in pursuance to Advertisement No.01/2004 has already attained its finality and in the meantime, more than one decade has elapsed. Moreover, at this distance of time, it would not be justified to rake up selection which has already been finalized since long. 6. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submission and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the selection in pursuance to Advertisement no.01/2004 has already attained its finality since long. However, the height of the petitioner has been reduced in the re-measurement and the marks secured by the petitioner did not entitle her to be selected for the post in question. Even otherwise, inclusion in the name of select list, does not confer any indefeasible right to the petitioner for appointment. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file representation before the appropriate authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/ communication of the copy of the order for return of the original documents. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent concerned shall consider the same and shall return all the documents, if not already returned. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed.