JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri K.M. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri R.K.S. Suryavanshi for the opposite party no. 3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide advertisement no. 01/2016 dated 6.6.2016 issued by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board applications for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.) have been invited and last date for submitting application was 05.07.2016. The petitioner applied for such selection, however, he was serving in the Air Force at that point of time and was to retire on 31.05.2017. He was permitted to appear in the written examination which was held on 9.3.2019 and was declared successful in the written examination. He was issued interview letter dated 25.1.2020 mentioning the date of interview as 18.03.2020 but was not permitted to appear in the interview. 3. By means of this petition the learned counsel has contended that the present petitioner being an Ex-Army Personnel should have been permitted to appear in interview for the post of T.G.T. (English) conducted pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2016. He has further submitted that the opposite party no. 3 has, however, issued the interview letter to the petitioner but did not permit him to appear in the interview holding that the petitioner was not Ex-Army Personnel at the time of submitting application for the post in question. 4. At the outset Sri Suryavanshi has submitted that the selection process for the post of T.G.T. (English) has also been finalized and selection have been concluded. He has also submitted that however, the interview letter dated 25.1.2020 was provided to the petitioner indicating the date of interview on 18.3.2020 but the petitioner was not permitted to appear for interview for the reason that he was eligible to be treated as 'Ex Army Personnel' at the time of submitting application in view of the provisions of applicable. Further, he should have approached the Court at that point of time but this petition has been filed after about nine months from the date of interview and after completion of selection process in question, therefore, the petitioner may not be granted any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the advertisement in question dated 6.6.2016 (Annexure no. Further, he should have approached the Court at that point of time but this petition has been filed after about nine months from the date of interview and after completion of selection process in question, therefore, the petitioner may not be granted any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the advertisement in question dated 6.6.2016 (Annexure no. 2) wherein clause 9 of general condition indicates that if any employee serving in the State Government or Central Government shall have to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from his / her employer and said 'No Objection' shall be produced as and when the same would be called. The petitioner has obtained the 'No Objection Certificate' from Indian Air Force (Annexure no. 1) on 15.7.2016. Thereafter, he appeared for written examination which he successfully qualified and he has been issued an interview letter dated 25.1.2020. He has also submitted that the petitioner retired from Indian Army on 31.5.2017, therefore, at the time of interview he was 'Ex-Army Personnel'. On the basis of aforesaid submission, Sri Shukla has submitted that the opposite party has not permitted the petitioner for the reason that he was not 'Ex-Army Personnel' at the time of submitting application form is patently unwarranted. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 4 which is office memorandum dated 14.4.1987 being issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India wherein the explanation appended to the definition of 'Ex-Serviceman' which categorically provides that such Ex-Servicemen may be permitted to apply for reemployment one year before the completion of specified term of engagement, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid guideline being issued by the Central Government since the petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2017 before the date of interview so he should have been permitted to appear for interview. 6. Sri R.K.S. Suryavanshi has drawn attention of this Court towards condition no. 13 of general conditions of advertisement which clearly indicates that the candidate of freedom-fighters, ex-servicemen etc shall be covered from the provisions of The U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Serviceman) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1993) and in view of section 2(ga) the Ex-Army Personnel shall be a person who was serving in the Army and has been getting pension after his retirement. Since the petitioner was not a retired person at the time of submitting application, therefore, in view of the provisions of Act, 1993 he may not be treated as Ex-Army Personnel, as such he has been rightly denied to appear for the interview. He has also submitted that since the eligibility of the petitioner was to be looked into as per the condition of the advertisement which provides about the applicability of the provisions of Act, 1993 so the guidelines to this effect issued by the Central Government may not provide any help to the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, since the selection in question has already been concluded and the petitioner has filed this writ petition after nine months of conclusion of the selection process and no explanation has been given as to why he has approached the Court after about nine months from the date when he was refused to appear for interview, therefore, now no interference would be required. Besides, the petitioner has already been retired from service on 31.5.2017, therefore, it is needless to say that he may apply for any employment under the category of Ex-Army Personnel. However, he was not ex-army personnel in the light of provisions of Act, 1993 when he had applied for the post in question. The illegibility of a person shall be looked into at the time when he / she files application to participate in the selection in question in the light of such condition indicated in the advertisement. Therefore, for that reason too no interference would be required. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner may not be granted any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.