IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9890 of 2010 1. MANJU KUMARI W/O RAMDEO PRASAD R/O PRADEEP GENERAL STORE, PURAB BAZAR, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTT.- SAHARSA 2. ANIL GUPTA S/O SALIGRAM PRASAD GUPTA R/O PRADEEP GENERAL STORE, PURAB BAZAR, P.S. SAHARSA, DISTT.- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, R.C.I.-22 QUAILITE INTERNATION AREA, DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR N.I.V.H., DEHRI-DUM-116, RAJPUR ROAD UTTAR PRADESH 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CUM-CO-ORDINATOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, HANDICAPPED DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION BUILDING NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE CHAIRMAN R.C.I.-22, QUAPILITE INTERNATION AREA, DELHI 6. THE IN-CHARGE, TRAINING CENTRE OF TEACHERS FOR VISUALLY HANDICAPPED, KADAM KUAN, BUDHAMURTI, PATNA ----------- 03. 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State, for the respondent no.5 Rehabilitation Council of India as also for respondent no.6. The petitioners are stated to be persons who appeared at an On Line test for admission to the Diploma course of Teachers Training for the Visually Handicapped. There is no pleading in the writ application that the petitioners were applicants in the Visually Handicapped category and it was left to the respondents to make necessary disclosure of these essential facts in the counter affidavit. Be that as it may, the petitioners are stated to have been successful in the On Line test. They are aggrieved by the denial of admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 2 that admission was on first come basis, but the respondent did not publish the final list of selected candidates on the Web Site and neither did they do so on the notice board. Appointments have been made by under hand dealings for money consideration. The career of the petitioners shall be ruined, if the Court did not interfere. The argument at first flush seems very attractive. But, it was for the petitioners to build up their case on that ground. The prospectus has not been annexed. The extract of the admission announcement only states that the recognized Institution must provide the list of admitted candidates my E-Mail. Further directions will be posted by the council on the Web Site. There is nothing to suggest that the list of persons admitted was to be published on the Web Site by respondent no.6. Assuming for the sake of argument, that it has not been published on the Web Site, the question remains whether any person with lesser qualification than the petitioners have been given admission. There is no such assertion. A copy of the counter affidavit of the Rehabilitation Council of India was served on the petitioners on 31.8.2010. A second counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Rehabilitation Council of India which is nothing, but a reiteration of the first 3 affidavit. It states that all the seats have been filled up and the admission process was closed. Rehabilitation Council of India runs the aforesaid course in the aegis of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The writ petition does not mention any names or details of any candidate granted admission for money consideration. The verbal contention is unsubstantiated and merits no consideration. The petitioners have not denied the statement made in the counter affidavit that no post remains vacant. If admission was on first cum first serve basis, it was for the petitioners to demonstrate that admission had been granted to a named candidate who had approached the respondents later or at least after the filing of the writ petition. No such assertion has been made and the respondents have not even considered it necessary to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. This Court finds no merit in this application, it is accordingly dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)