IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2432 OF 2008 AMRESH, SON OF SHRI SIYA RAM PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINGIYAN, POLICE STATION MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL –CUM- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE I.G., DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA 4. THE D.I.G., KOSHI RANGE, SAHARSA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MADHEPURA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHARSA ………………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ********* 3 28/03/2011 The petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Constable in the district of Madhepura. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he has obtained 15 marks in the physical test and as such he should be given preference in view of the fact that he holds a sport certificate. Annexure-2 is the sports certificate which indicates that the petitioner participated in the Inter- College Volleyball Tournament in the year 2005-06. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that one Fulen Kumar was appointed as he was older to the petitioner. The merit list has been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit which indicates that the person who was appointed had not less than 15 marks. As far as the claim of the petitioner regarding points to be given for sports, it has been stated at paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, that as per 2 memo no. 5004/P2 dated 04.11.2004, 1-5 points are to be given for the medals/award achieved at State-level games/championship including wrestling. For rural games, limited games or limited championship, no points would be awarded. Admittedly, the petitioner has been given the certificate at the University level for participating in Volleyball championship. This certificate would not come within the State level games/championship, and as such no points were awarded to the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has not been given preference over his immediate superiors, who had also obtained 15 marks. The second claim of the petitioner is that several persons have not joined the post and as such he should be considered on that account and if the vacancy exists, he ought to have been permitted to join on the vacant post due to non-joining of the other candidates. In view of the fact that the merit list was prepared in the year 2006 and it is presumed, although no facts has been stated, that steps have been taken for filling up the vacant posts, this Court cannot disturb or upset the appointment procedure after 4 to 5 years of preparation of the merit list, unless there was some glaring illegality in the appointment procedure. 3 This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )