ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for his appointment to the post of Police Constable in connection with the Advt. No. 1/2004 floated by the then Home Department. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner claims to have qualified in all the events and as such, an offer of appointment was issued to him. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police for verification of the testimonials including the educational certificates, caste certificates and residential certificates. At the time of verification, it was found that petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and as such, no consideration was made for appointment of the petitioner though he had qualified in all the events. It is the specific case of the petitioner that subsequently, he had been acquitted in the criminal case on 18.09.2017. The petitioner approached the respondent-authorities for appointment to the post of Police Constable in view of the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal case but no consideration was given and hence, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Police Constable as on the date of filling-up of the application form, the petitioner was not implicated in any criminal case. It was only at the time of issuance of letter of appointment, the petitioner was implicated in a case and in the said case also, he has been honorably acquitted and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Police Constable as petitioner was not at fault. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Samir Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sahay argues that before this Court passes any order, on merits of the case it will be proper to look into the maintainability of the writ petition. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Samir Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sahay argues that before this Court passes any order, on merits of the case it will be proper to look into the maintainability of the writ petition. The offer of appointment was made in the year 2008 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2018, i.e. after 10 long years and on this ground itself, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. It has been further argued that even if the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, no right has been accrued to him for his appointment to the post of Police Constable. At the time of appointment, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and admittedly, though he has been acquitted that order of acquittal was passed after eight years i.e. in 2018. In any view of the matter, the recruitment process with respect to Advt. No. 01/2014 are already over and after the aforesaid advertisement, many advertisement has been issued and floated by the respondent-State. At present, appointments are being done by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and now the Home Department has no role in the matter of selection process of Police Constables. It has also be brought to the notice of the Court that in view of policy decision of the State Govt. the recruitment process with respect to Advt. No. 1/2004 has already come to an end. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition on the following grounds:- (I) At the time of issuance of offer of appointment, the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case. (II) Order of acquittal has been passed after nine long years when the selection process is already closed. (III) The Home Department of the State of Jharkhand has already taken a decision to close all the appointments arising out of Advt. No. 1/2004. The said decision was taken in the year 2012 itself. (IV) The writ petition has been filed after 10 long years after issuance of offer of appointment. (III) The Home Department of the State of Jharkhand has already taken a decision to close all the appointments arising out of Advt. No. 1/2004. The said decision was taken in the year 2012 itself. (IV) The writ petition has been filed after 10 long years after issuance of offer of appointment. The advertisement was floated in the year 2004 and offer of appointment was issued in the year 2008 itself and no writ can be entertained after such long period and on the ground of maintainability itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (V) After Advt. No. 1/2004, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is the recruiting body. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.