Ruchi Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10201 of 2015 ====================================================== Ruchi Kumari Daughter of Shatrudhan Tiwari, Resident of village- Nawada, P.O.- Madhepur, P.S.- Madhepur, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The D.G. of Police Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Secretary Central Selection Board, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Chairman Central Selection Board, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, AC to GA-13 For C.S.B.C.

:

Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vivekanand Amritesh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL ORDER 12-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable in district police force/B.M.P. in terms of advertisement no. 01 of 2014, whereby recruitment was held for filling up of 11789 posts of constables.

3. Respondent nos. 3 and 4/Central Selection Board, Bihar, Patna has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, in paragraph no. 14, it has been stated that pursuant to the selection held in terms of advertisement no. 01/2014, final result for the post of constable was published on 23.06.2015, in which, out of 11,783

Patna High Court CWJC No.10201 of 2015(3) dt.12-11-2024 2/2 vacancies, total 11,783 candidates were declared successful, whereas 319 vacancies reserved for different categories remained unfilled due to non-availability of suitable candidates. In paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit, it has been further stated that the petitioner being general female non-home guard category candidate had secured 102 marks whereas the cut off marks for her category was 120. Hence, the petitioner could not be declared successful as she secured less marks than the cut off marks prescribed for her category.

4. The petitioner has not filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 to controvert the averments made therein to the effect that the petitioner could not be selected since she secured less marks than the cut off marks prescribed for her category.

5. In view of the above, no direction as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, can be issued.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. (Nani Tagia, J) Amrendra/- U