JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. – The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for offering appointment letter to him for the post of Cook (water carrier) in Jharkhand Police. 2. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that an advertisement was floated by the State of Jharkhand bearing Advertisement No. 01/2014. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner belonging to Backward Class and matriculate, having sufficient experience of cooking, applied for the same. The petitioner along with others candidates appeared in the selection process but unfortunately, the petitioner was not finally selected whereas, others were selected. It is specific case of the petitioner that he was having sufficient experience and qualification for appointment to the post of Cook (Water Carrier) but the respondents have illegally not considered the case of the petitioner on nonest ground and as such, the petitioner has knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is fit for appointment to the post of Cook (water carrier) in Jharkhand Police, as he fulfills all the requisite qualification and experience. Learned counsel further argues that experience was one of the criteria for appointment to the post of Cook, which is apparent from the earlier advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 02/10 and the respondents have not considered the experience and not granted any weightage which carries 20 marks, if any weightage is given on the said experience, the petitioner would have automatically come within zone of consideration for appointment to the post of cook in Jharkhand Police. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards counteraffidavit and submits that admittedly, the petitioner belongs to Backward Class Category and has obtained 42.50 marks, having Roll No. WC5988, but last selected candidate in his category has obtained 55 marks, having Roll No. WC2467 and as such, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for appointment to the post of cook (water carrier). Learned counsel further argues that so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding allotment of marks /points for his experience is concerned the same was meant for Advertisement No. 02/10, which was cancelled subsequently and after cancellation of the said advertisement, fresh advertisement being advertisement No. 01/2014 was issued in which there is no provision to give additional marks/points for experience and as such, the claim of the petitioner is without any basis. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents-Mr. Sameer Sahai. As the earlier advertisement No. 02/2010 has already been cancelled. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for giving weightage on experience, which comes out from earlier advertisement is not tenable in the eyes of law and not accepted by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured less marks than the last selected candidate in his category and as such, the stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is fully justified. 6. I find no illegality or infirmity in non-considering the case of the petitioner, no interference is warranted in the instant case. There is no merit in this case. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.