1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2824/2007 Kan Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. Date of Order :: 16.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the respondents. ... The Central Reserve Police Force initiated process of selection for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Steno)/ Head Constable (Ministerial) under the advertisement dated Nil, Annexure-1. The petitioner in pursuant thereto submitted an application and passed the 1st Phase of the process of selection, thus, a communication dated 16.4.2007 the Addl. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ajmer informed the petitioner to report for type-test on 1.5.2007 and to appear for personal interview on 3.5.2007. The communication aforesaid is said to be received by the petitioner on 3.5.2007, therefore, he failed to face the process of selection. This petition for writ was filed by the petitioner on 8.5.2007 and on 30.5.2007 this Court pleased to issue notice to the respondents. In response to the notice so issued a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the process of selection was continued up to 14.5.2007 but prior to that the petitioner never approached them and also not made any complaint regarding delayed receipt of the interview call. It is also stated that the call letter was sent to the petitioner on 16.4.2007 itself and in normal course it should have been delivered to the petitioner at his native place, within a reasonable time that is about a week. It is pertinent to note that the letter concerned was posted from Ajmer on 16.4.2007 to be delivered to the petitioner 2 at Kalwa in district Nagaur. The distance between these two places is less than 200 kms. It is also stated that the entire process of selection has been completed and appointments as a consequent thereto have also been given. In the instant matter even by admitting the position that the petitioner received the call letter on 3.5.2007 no relief can now be granted to him as the entire process of selection has been completed and the petitioner did not choose to approach the respondents during currency of the process of selection. The petitioner immediately on receiving the call letter on 3.5.2007, should have approached to the respondents for redressal of his grievance. Instead of that the petitioner filed this petition for writ on 8.5.2007 and notice was issued to the respondents on 30.5.2007 and in the meantime entire process stood completed. As such, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the matter at this stage. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '