IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8135 of 2005 Anwar Ansari @ Md. Anwar, son of Md. Jinna, resident of Nayatola, Phulwarisharif, P.O. & P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Old Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Patna. 6. The Superintendent of Police (Crime) Investigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Transport Headquarters, Patna. 8. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Patna. .... Respondents. ----------- 03- 23.04.2009 Heard Mr. Shanti Pratap for the petitioner, and Mr. Piyush Lal, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.3. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him as Electrician in the Bihar Police force. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the respondent authorities had issued advertisement on 19.6.2004, inter alia, inviting applications for different posts 2 including those of electricians. The advertisement stated that there were two vacancies for the post of Electrician. The petitioner was applicant for the same and was placed at serial no.4. The two persons at serial nos.1 and 2 were appointed, and the petitioner was not appointed because of his position in the merit-list. It is stated in the writ petition that one of the two selected persons died after his appointment and it is, therefore, submitted that the said vacancy should be filled up by the petitioner. 3. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioner was admittedly at serial no.4 of the merit-list, and the treatment meted out to serial no.3 has not been disclosed in writ petition, nor he has been impleaded as a party respondent. No case has been set up in the writ petition that any person junior to him in the merit list has been appointed. It is, therefore, not possible to accede to the submission made in the writ petition. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3