JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to immediately offer him the letter of appointment for the post of Constable. 2. The facts, in brief, is that in pursuance to the advertisement, being Advertisement No. 01/2004 for appointment on the post of Constable, the petitioner applied against the 50 % vacancy meant for the persons who obtained Home Guard Training. It has further been averred that the petitioner appeared for physical and written test, in which, he qualified and based on his height and educational qualification, the petitioner is entitled for 15 points/marks (8 marks for height and 7 marks for educational qualification), but, surprisingly, his name did not find place amongst the list of successful candidates. It has further been averred that on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that under the category, in which the petitioner falls i.e. Matric Passed Home Guard Trained Candidate having obtained 9 points/marks has been offered appointment but the petitioner has been denied appointment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned respondents but no credence has been paid till date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner centered his argument on the issue of parity and submitted that private respondent nos. 6 and 7, who also have obtained/completed Home Guard Training on 15.01.2004 i.e. on the same day the petitioner had completed/obtained the Home Guard Training, have been appointed but petitioner has been subjected to discrimination and has been given step motherly treatment by not offering him appointment even though the petitioner obtained more marks than that of the successful candidate falling in that category. It has further been submitted that the petitioner completed his Home Guard Training from Jharkhand Home Guard Battalion, Ranchi on 15.01.2004 but necessary certificate with respect to completion of Home Guard Training was issued belatedly on 03.07.2004. It has further been submitted that when he qualified in the written as well as physical test, as per the direction of the higher authorities, he submitted the certificate before the authorities, which was duly accepted hence at the later stage such certificate cannot be denied. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that application form for the post of constable was submitted by the petitioner on 09.02.2004, in which, at relevant column no. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that application form for the post of constable was submitted by the petitioner on 09.02.2004, in which, at relevant column no. 10, it has been mentioned by the petitioner "Prashikshan Me Hai". Furthermore, the certificate furnished at later stage was of temporary training camp and not the basic training, as required. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to a trained Home Guard at the time of filling up of the application form. Furthermore, in the advertisement at paragraph 5 (Kha) itself, it is clearly stated that candidate belonging to Home Guard must attach such certificate with the application form. It has further been submitted that as per the version of the petitioner himself he was under training from 15.01.2004 to 04.03.2004 whereas the last date for filling up form was 15.02.2004, which itself indicate that at the time of filling of application form he was not a trained home guard, hence, his candidature was not considered in that category and he was treated under open category, in which, his name could not find place in merit list. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police vide memo dated 18.08.2010 had declared that merit list prepared against advertisement no.01/2004 has become time barred and no selection will be made from the said merit list now. Hence, in that eventuality also no relief can be granted to the petitioner after lapse of such span of time. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on close scrutiny of the documents available on record, in particular impugned advertisement, it is manifestly clear that candidate claiming benefit of Home Guard Training was to attach certificate to that effect with the application form. In the case at hand, admittedly the petitioner was undergoing training and had not completed his training till the date he submitted application or till last date of filling up of application. Hence, the respondents treated him under open category, in which, admittedly the name of the petitioner could not find place as he could not secure marks more than the last selected candidate or at par with the marks secured by last selected candidate in that category. 6. So far the question of parity and discrimination is concerned, it has been brought on record that the private respondent nos. 6. So far the question of parity and discrimination is concerned, it has been brought on record that the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 possessed basic training whereas the petitioner had completed only camp training. Even otherwise also, it is well settled principle of law that wrong cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. In this regard, another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of since the date of selection process as of now about more than one and half decade has lapsed and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police vide memo dated 18.08.2010 had declared that merit list prepared against advertisement no.01/2004 has become time barred, hence also no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ application, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.