IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8153 of 2011 1. Juhi Kumari D/O Tapeshwar Prasad Singh C/O Meera Devi, Village - Khalipur, P.O. - Pratappur, P.S. - Karja, Distt. - Muzaffarpur 2. Rani Kumari, D/O Ramesh Prasad Singh R/O Village - Pratppur, P.O. - Pratppur, P.S.- Karja, Dist. – Muzaffarur-------- ---------------------------------------Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Its Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 2. The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna 3. The Chairman of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary of the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Bihar, Patna ----------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. B.K. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.R. Sinha (G.P.19) For CSBC: M/s. Sanjay Pandey & B.K.Misha, Advocates ----------------------- 3 21.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ was filed by two petitioners seeking direction upon the respondent to appoint them on the post of constable on the basis of so called success in the physical and written tests. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit it is the stand of the respondent that petitioner no. 2 has already been appointed and has joined her battalion on the basis of the letter dated 10.8.2011. So far petitioner no.1 is concerned she has only 26 marks and the last person who was selected in that category and appointed had 36 marks and that is the sole reason why first petitioner could not be appointed. After such a stand having been taken by the respondent, counsel for the petitioner no.1 submits that she has not been provided her marks. In this regard there is ample provision of law available to her to obtain such information. Let her do so under such provision of 2 Right to Information Act. The Court is not satisfied with the submission that there was discrimination in non-appointment despite selection of the petitioner in the screening. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed in so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned. Petitioner no.2 has already got her relief. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)