Shanti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19263 of 2011 ====================================================== Shanti Kumari, Daughter of Jay Ram Paswan, resident of village-Kushi Harpur Ramni, P.S.-Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, State of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel Administrative Reforms Department), Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary.

5. The Chairman of Central Selection Board of Constable, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to AAG-4 as well as learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 4 and 5/ Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment).

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, in sum and substance, has made a prayer for directing the Respondents to appoint her as constable pursuant to advertisement no.2/2009. It was claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as constable in the category of Scheduled Castes, whereas in this

Patna High Court CWJC No.19263 of 2011 (6) dt.22-06-2016 2/2 case, a counter affidavit has been filed and in paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit, a specific stand has been taken that the petitioner had secured lesser marks than the last candidate recommended for being appointed in her category. The petitioner had secured 18 marks, whereas cut-off marks in her category was 21 marks. The averment made in paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit has not been disputed by way of filing any reply by the petitioner. In view of specific case that none of the candidates in the petitioner's category having lesser marks has been recommended for being appointed as constable, certainly it cannot be a case of violation of any right of the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U