IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12897 of 2009 HANSRAJ KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 8.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable in response to an advertisement No. 1/2004 published on 11.8.2004. It is his case that he was successful in the process of selection and his name finds place in the final panel of successful candidates prepared on or about 6.9.2006. It is his further case that persons like him who secured total 14 marks have also been selected. The grievance is that notwithstanding his selection, empanelment, availability of vacancies and appointment of persons with similar marks, he has been discriminated against by denial of appointment. The respondents have therefore acted wrongly in carrying over any un- filled vacancies of Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 by clubbing it with the fresh Advertisement No. 1 of 2009. Unfortunately, the writ application is lacking on essential facts. There is only a bald pleading that the petitioner was empanelled as a successful candidate. No serial position in the panel has been mentioned. His representation in pursuance of the advertisement by the authorities dated 11.2.2009 inviting applications from empanelled candidates who had not been appointed, also does not mention the fact that he was a successful empanelled candidate. Likewise, though he claims to have secured 2 14 marks as a successful candidate, he does not disclose any names of persons who with similar marks have been appointed. This Court is therefore satisfied that it is not possible for this Court to pass any positive order at this stage with regard to the petitioner and neither is this Court persuaded to start a roving enquiry in the matter by calling upon the respondents to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner proposes to file a representation making adequate disclosures with regard to his assertion of empanelments along with the names of the persons with similar marks who have been appointed. If the respondents find correctness in his claim, the petitioner may have a case to be considered for un-filled vacancies of Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 which perhaps then cannot be clubbed with Advertisement No. 1 of 2009, as a successful candidate but not appointed for no fault of his own. In the converse his claim may not be sustainable. Let such proposed representation by the petitioner be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation so that the petitioner suffers no prejudice. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)