Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10726 of 2021 ====================================================== Rahul Kumar, Son of Sri Mahantri Mistri Resident of Village - Punava, Post Office- Wazirganj, Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Gaya, Pin - 805131 (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5.
The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Requirement), Bihar, Patna.
6.
The Special Work Officer, Central Selection Board (Constable Requirement), Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravi Raj, Adv For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Ruchikar Jha, AC to SC-8 Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Adv Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-09-2023 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Board.
2.
The petitioner has participated in the process of selection of 'Constable', pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2019. It is the petitioner's self-assessed claim that he had secured 72 marks in the process. The claim is specified in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, allocating marks, as per his self-serving assessment with respect to the various events, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10726 of 2021(2) dt.19-09-2023 2/2 which he participated on the date of Physical Evaluation Test (PET). He thus claims to have secured more than cutoff 66 for EBC, to which category he claims to belong.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the self-serving assessment based on which the petitioner claims 72 marks, cannot enure to the petitioner's benefit. There is no declaration by the respondent-Board, of such marks obtained by the petitioner.
4.
On consideration of rival submissions, this Court finds that there is no declaration of 72 marks in favour of the petitioner by the respondent-Board. Petitioner has never been declared successful. The petitioner cannot be granted any relief, let alone appointment based on his own self-serving assessment of marks.
5.
Writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U