JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J – The petitioner in this writ application has sought for direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Constable, since he comes within the zone of consideration. 2. The facts, as revealed in the writ application, in brief, is that in pursuance to Advertisement no.01 of 2004, the petitioner appeared in the physical and written examination conducted for appointment on the post of Police Constable. Due to non-appointment, the petitioner submitted representation before the S.P. Hazaribagh, which was forwarded to S.P. Koderma (respondent no.4) and subsequently also other representation was filed vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. Since the representation fell on deaf ears, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that in the select list the name of the petitioner appeared and he obtained 19 points under general Non Home Guard category. According to the master chart his height was found 177.5 c.m. and his educational qualification is Intermediate in his category, i.e. general Non Home Guard category and the cut off marks for appointment as Constable in general Non Home Guard category is 19 points. But due to direction given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (personnel) Jharkhand, Ranchi vide memo dated 18.08.2010 the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment as evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has been submitted that petitioner has not been given appointment since he submitted Intermediate certificate after publication of the result. It has further been submitted that the selection process for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement no.01/2004 has been completed by the North Chhotanagpur Regional Selection Board, Hazaribagh and after conclusion of the selection process, several appointments have been made in the State under the said post. Vide letter dated 18.08.2010 issued under the signature of the Deputy inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Chatra, Koderma and Ramgarh have been directed not to appoint from the merit list, since the selection process in pursuance of the Advertisement no.01/2004 have become time barred. Vide letter dated 18.08.2010 issued under the signature of the Deputy inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Chatra, Koderma and Ramgarh have been directed not to appoint from the merit list, since the selection process in pursuance of the Advertisement no.01/2004 have become time barred. It has further been submitted that a fresh Advertisement no.01/2010 has already been published for appointment for the post of Constable in different district of the State and the selection process at the time of filing of the counter affidavit was about to be completed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, in view of the following facts and reasons: (I) Though the petitioner was considered for general Non Home Guard category but his case was not considered for appointment on the post of Constable because of the fact that he produced the Intermediate certificate after publication of the result. That apart the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand vide letter dated 18.08.2010 has clearly instructed to the S.Ps of the different districts not to give appointment from the merit list since the same have become time barred and the recruitment was in pursuance to Advertisement no.1 of 2004. Since the process of selection has attained its finality since long and subsequently other advertisement was published vide Advertisement No.01 of 2010 and the process of selection was about to be completed, there is absolutely no justifiable grounds to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. 5. As a logical sequitur to the weighty and cogent reasons given in the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to tinker with the selection of the Constable made in pursuance to Advertisement no.1/2004. 6. Viewed thus, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit.