WP(C) 3351/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. H. Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Ms. R. Borah, lear ned CGC, for the respondents. In compliance with the directions, issued in this case, on 23.05.2011, D eputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, 9th Mile, Guwahati, is pr esent along with all relevant records. The petitioners’ grievance is against his non-appointment to the post of Constable, which he had applied for, pursuant to an advertisement, dated 22.11. 2008. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertion that the advertisement had not cl early mentioned the marks, which would be made available for various parameters of selection, the record, which the respondents have produced, clearly indicate the marks of each of the parameters of selection were specially mentioned in the advertisement itself. The advertisement also indicated the number of posts, whi ch were available in terms of various reservations, which have been provided to different classes of people. The record produced further shows that the petition er obtained, out of 100 marks, 41 marks. As against the marks, so obtained by th e petitioner, the candidate, who was the last in the process of selection, obtai ned as much as 53 marks. In these circumstances, it becomes clear that the petit ioner failed in the competition and he could not have, therefore, been selected or appointed. Situated thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not bee n able to make out any case warranting this Court’s interference in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India w ith the selection process, which stands impugned in this writ petition. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition fa ils and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Let the records, which have been produced by the learned CGC, be return ed forthwith.