IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4947 of 2009 RITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 28/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of constable in Bihar Military Police. On successfully competing, her name figured in the merit list. She appeared before the medical board also, but did not receive an appointment letter. Her representation having evoked no response she came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12260/08. Directions were issued to consider her case in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 15.2.2009 has then followed denying her relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submission. He firstly submits that once the petitioner was successful and her name figured in the merit panel, she was not considered medically unfit, the respondents are bound to provide her appointment. The second submission is that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. The respondents have wrongly treated her as a backward category candidate to deny her appointment. 2 Learned counsel for the State though has filed a counter affidavit, strenuously relied upon the reasoning stated in the impugned order dated 15.2.2009 itself. Mere empanelment creates no right to appointment. The petitioner may have been empanelled and declared medically fit. That does not vest an automatic right in her to claim appointment. The impugned order dated 15.2.2009 explicitly states that her name did figure in the fourth merit list, but her position in the panel was low. The vacancies having been exhausted with the appointment of persons above her in the panel, this Court finds no error in the impugned order. On the second question, this Court finds it difficult to concur with the petitioner. Paragraph-3 of the impugned order does not classify the petitioner as a backward category candidate. It has to be read along with paragraph-5 of the order. The nomenclature of backward class women as a category for appointment on the post of constable has been explained to include women candidates in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward and Extremely Backward and who have been placed in the merit list according to their panel position. 3 This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that being a Scheduled Caste candidate she has wrongly been classified as a backward category candidate. The petitioner has obviously laboured under a confusion in respect thereof without proper appreciation of the reasons, discussions in the impugned order dated 15.2.2009 in its entirety. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)