JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction for his appointment on the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force pursuant to an advertisement No. 1/2011. 2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement No. 1/2011 for 11952 posts of constable issued by Railway Protection Force, the petitioner submitted his application on 28-3-2011 and with Roll No. 2111109187 he wrote examination on 16-6-2013. When no result was declared the petitioner sought information through application dated 4-2-2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding his result, which application was not addressed by respondents. Consequently legal notice was sent to respondents on 19-2-2014, but allegedly to no avail. Thereafter the petitioner along with one Hari Singh filed SBCWP No. 5026/2014 which was disposed of on 5-5-2014 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent No. 3 Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, who was directed to consider the representation and declare the marks of the petitioners. Thereupon the respondents are alleged to have declared the result of Hari Singh only and not of the petitioner. Therefore another legal notice was sent on 26-6-2018, which was replied by respondents vide letter dated 4-7-2018 disclosing that pursuant to order dated 5-5-2014 in SBCWP No. 5026/2014 reply was sent to petitioner on 15-7-2014 and copy of OMR sheet was also sent. On receipt of the copy of OMR sheet the petitioner found that he had wrongly mentioned his roll number as 211110187 instead of 2111109187 therefore his answer sheet was not checked. The petitioner alleges that he otherwise secured more marks than the last cut off in his category, who was appointed as Constable. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. A perusal of the material available on record clearly indicates that the petitioner on his admission had committed the mistake in his OMR answer sheet and wrongly bubbled his roll number as 211110187 instead of 2111109187. His OMR answer sheet was therefore not checked--more so as the whole process was computerised. Such reply by the respondents was already sent to the petitioner on 15-7-2014 itself as is evident from the letter dated 4- 7-2018 sent by respondents. Quite evidently the selection process pursuant to advertisement No. 1/2011 for appointment of constables has been completed prior to 15-7-2014. Such reply by the respondents was already sent to the petitioner on 15-7-2014 itself as is evident from the letter dated 4- 7-2018 sent by respondents. Quite evidently the selection process pursuant to advertisement No. 1/2011 for appointment of constables has been completed prior to 15-7-2014. To interfere as prayed for in the petition will not be appropriate, not the least for the reason of the petition being hit by laches. Besides the petitioner himself admittedly committed the mistake in his OMR answer sheet by not giving out his roll number correctly. Now in the year 2019 the process of selection pursuant to advertisement No. 1/2011 cannot be disturbed. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.