IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2596 of 2009 Nawin Kumar . Versus The B.P.S.C. & Ors . ----------- 3 4.7.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, State and the Counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service Commission. Petitioner belongs to the category of backward and possessed the degree of Bachelor in Pharmacy (B Pharma). In pursuance of advertisement no. 2 of 2000, published by the BPSC for appointment against vacancies of 196 posts of Drug Inspectors. Petitioner also applied for appointment on the post of Drug Inspector in pursuance to advertisement. Petitioner appeared in the written test. The result of written test was published on 3.11.2001 in which total 26 candidates of general category were declared successful. The result of applicant and other backward category candidates was not published, a such the result was challenged before the High Court in CWJC No. 10942 of 1998 mainly on the ground that the marks fixed as qualifying marks are contrary to statutory rules. The writ application was disposed of vide order dated 16.9.1990, directing the respondent authorities to re- 2 determine the merit list on the basis of qualifying marks prescribed under the statutory rules. Petitioner represented before the Bihar Public Service Commission to publish his result but no step was taken. MJC No. 3125 of 2005 was filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the BPSC and other authorities. The show-cause was filed by the BPSC stating that petitioner has obtained only 27 marks in his written test out of 400 marks, which is less than the cut off marks, as such his result was not published. Since he did not qualify for interview, his result was not published among the successful candidates. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the BPSC to produce his answer books of the written test and question/ paper who break up of marks, and also to publish his result. Petitioner has alleged that his answer book has been changed, tampered and manipulated by the BPSC, for malafide reasons. In paragraphs 29 and 30, allegation has been made against the BPSC though in support of such allegation, there is no document annexed with the writ application. Allegations have been made in Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the writ 3 application, but no source of such informations has been disclosed nor there any evidence has been brought on record to substantiate such allegation. Simply wild allegations have been made, which do not make out a case, for allowing the prayer of petitioner. In the earlier writ application, no such allegation had been made by the petitioner. After disposal of earlier writ application, when all process of appointment has been completed, Petitioner has filed this writ application, on the basis of such unsubstantiated allegations. I do not find a reason for directing the respondents to produce answer-books of the petitioner of written examination. Counsel appearing for the BPSC, on the other hand, submits that subsequent to Advertisement No. 2 of 2000 another advertisement was published for filling existing vacancies in which also, petitioner had appeared. On this count also, prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed. Considering all these facts, this petition is dismissed. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)