IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8237 of 2010 1. Sanjeet Kumar, S/O Sri Ram Vinay Sharma, R/O Village- Panchmahalla,P.S.-Tekari,District-Gaya. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Inspector General,Central Range,Old Secretariat,Bihar,Patna-800014. 3. The Deputy Inspector General,Bhagalpur Range, Bhagalpur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police Cum Chairman,Bhagalpur Police Selection Board,Bhagalpur. 5. The Secretary,Bihar Athletics Association,New Police Line,P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna. 6. Md. Imran Khan, S/O Allauddin Khan, Appointed As Constable Pursuant To The Advertisement No.1 / 2004. 7. Md. Jamshed Alam, S/O Not Known To The Petitioner, Appointed As Constable Pursuant To The Advertisement No.1 / 2004. 3/ 25/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under advertisement No.1/04. His grievance is that as a general category candidate he has been given 12 marks without allotting any marks for his sports certificate on basis of which he was entitled to 17 marks. Persons with 15 marks have been appointed and therefore he would have been eligible to be considered for appointment if his sports certificates would have been taken into consideration. After some argument in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit with regard to the 2 enquiries done by the respondents on the sports certificate submitted by the petitioner, and being unable to persuade the Court to take a view different from that contended by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner moulded his submissions and confined the prayer for relief as follows:- It is submitted that even if the petitioner is taken as a general category candidate with 12 marks excluding his claim for additional marks for sports certificate in view of the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.831 of 2009 to re- work out the vacancies as existing on the date of the advertisement in 2004, subject to availability of vacancies after re-determination, the petitioner may still have a case to be considered. Learned counsel for the State is not able to persuade the Court to take any other view with regard to the second submission on behalf of the petitioner. The Court therefore holds that the reluctance of this Court to interfere with the claim of the petitioner based on sports certificate is separate and distinct from his claim to be considered for appointment on basis of 12 marks as a general category candidate in view of the directions of the Division Bench to re-work out the vacancies. 3 The writ application is allowed only to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)