IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3551 of 2009 Pankaj Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3/ 19/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant in the other backward class (Annexure-II) for the post of Constable in the Bihar Military Police-9. He is stated to have secured 11 points. The original challenge was that persons with 11 points or even lesser marks in his category have been appointed. It was urged that on a wrong date of birth, the petitioner was being discriminated in appointment. Strong reliance was subsequently placed on the information furnished to the petitioner under the R.T.I. Act to submit that a person from the same category with 8 marks had been appointed. Accepting the claim of the petitioner that his correct date of birth was 15.8.1983, the last candidate appointed in his category with 11 marks bore the date of birth 28.1.1983. The Court finds no error in the same. Respondent No.6 in his counter affidavit has annexed the third merit-list of the backward class. The 2 minimum marks on which a person in the backward class has been appointed is 11. Learned counsel for the State submits that prima facie the information furnished under the R.T.I. Act that a person with 8 marks in that category had been appointed appears to be an inadvertent typographical error. In view of the apparent conflict between the list furnished by the respondents of the backward class (Annexures-1 and 2 not disclosed) and the information given to the petitioner under the R.T.I. Act classifying the marks of ‘other backward class’ candidates from Annexures-1 and 2 separately, and the failure of the respondents to explain the information under the R.T.I. Act adequately, let the office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, examine the limited grievance of the petitioner in the manner as directed hereinafter. If any candidate having 11 marks from the category to which the petitioner belongs in Annexure-II with a date of birth after the petitioner has been appointed, the respondents shall be obliged to consider the case of the petitioner. Alternately, if any person from Annexure-II, to which the petitioner belongs, has been appointed having secured less than 11 marks, the petitioner again is required to be considered. 3 If there is no illegality found on both the counts, the respondents are under no obligation to consider the case of the petitioner. Let such consideration be done and a reasoned final order passed within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)