Anita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12627 of 2011 ====================================================== Anita Kumari D/O Rameshwer Prasad W/O Late Shivjee Yadav, resident of P.W.D. Compound, S.P. Office, Near Kachahar P.O. H.O. Gaya ,P.S. Civil Line Distt. Gaya-823001, Roll No.62090134 .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The Central Selection Board, (Constable Recruitment) Bihar Patna through it Secretary

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

4. The Secretary of Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment) Bihar Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GP-28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-04-2016 Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to GP-28 as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent/ Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the Respondents to consider her case for appointment on the post of constable in B.M.P. and District Police. The petitioner has claimed that pursuant to advertisement no.2/2009, she applied and participated in the written test as well as physical test. Even thereafter, her name was not shown in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12627 of 2011 (7) dt.19-04-2016 2/2 final result.

In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent / Central Selection Board and a specific stand has been taken in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner had secured lesser marks than the last recommended candidate in her category. The petitioner has obtained only 11 marks, whereas last recommended candidate in her category has secured 37 marks. Though the counter affidavit was filed in the month of December, 2011, same has not been disputed by the petitioner.

In view of facts disclosed in the counter affidavit, none of the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner has been appointed. Accordingly, there is no infringement of any right of the petitioner and, as such, there is no question for passing favourable order.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U