Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of writ of mandamus for the following relief/s: –

I. For directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable in District Police Force, Bettiah on the ground of his being a successful candidate in all the test and examination conducted in pursuance of Advertisement No.01/1998.

II. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has appeared in the examination process on the post of Constable in District Police Force, Bettiah in pursuant to Advertisement No.01/1998. Counsel submits that the petitioner has participated in the entire process having height of 174 c.m. and chest was also more than the requirement as per the said advertisement. Counsel further submits that petitioner appeared in the physical efficiency test and written test in which he was declared successful. But, despite the fact that petitioner secured a very good position in the physical as well as written examination, he was not appointed, whereas, similarly situated candidates were appointed. Therefore, petitioner filed representation on 19.03.2012 before the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna (annexed as Annexure-1). Counsel submits that thereafter, petitioner has filed application under Right To Information Act, 2005, but nothing happened. Counsel submits that in the year 2014, petitioner has sent a legal notice to the Director General of Police, Bihar and S.P., Bettiah requesting him to direct the S.P., Bettiah, West Champaran to appoint him on the post of Constable and finally in the year 2017, he has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the representation was filed by the petitioner in the year 2012 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2017 and the said advertisement is of year 1998. Meaning thereby, about 19 years have been lapsed since the date of advertisement to the date of filing of the present writ petition. In this regard, Counsel relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 and submits that in this case, delay of 14 years in filing the writ petition, the writ petition was held not maintainable. Counsel further relied on a judgment in case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 264 in which the writ was filed after 20 years, and in the meantime, only representations were filed but, Hon’ble Court has refused to entertain the same.

5. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the documents, it transpires to this Court that advertisement is of the year 1998 as claimed by the petitioner that upon nonselection, he has filed representation in the year 2012. And thereafter, sent a legal notice in 2014 and subsequently, filed the present writ petition in the year 2017. Meaning thereby, from the date of cause of action, petitioner has filed the writ petition only after 19 years. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra), paragraph no.2 is very much relevant which states as follows: –

“The main grievance of the appellant is that the second respondent who was junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1957 by relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of service necessary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petition was of the view that the relaxation of the rules in favour of the second respondent without considering the appellant's case was arbitrary. In view of the statement on behalf of the Government that such relaxation was given only in the