Patna High CourtCWJC/9686/2011dismissed

Savitri Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-07Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9686 of 2011 ====================================================== Savitri Kumari Daughter of Shaligram Mandal Resident of Village Karanpur, P.O. Kalla, P.S. Laxmipur, District Jamui .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through the D.G.P. Bihar, Patna

2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar, Patna Through Its Secretary

3. The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna

4. The Secretary, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to Aag8 Mr. Sanjay Pandey Mr. Binod Kr. Mishra Mr. Vivek Anand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

07-01-2016 Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 8 as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent/Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment). The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the respondent to appoint her as Constable in B.M.P. It has been claimed that despite the fact that the petitioner qualified in the written test as well as physical test, her name was not included in the list of selected candidates.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9686 of 2011 (3) dt.07-01-2016 2/2 In this case, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 to 4 and a specific stand has been taken in paragraph - 11 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner, having lesser marks than the last candidate who was selected in the category of Backward Class Female Non-Home Guard, she was not declared selected. It has been indicated that the petitioner has secured only 12 marks, whereas, last recommended candidate in her category has secured 79 marks in the written test. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed. In view of submission made in paragraph - 11 of the counter affidavit, there is no reason to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U