IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5252 of 2010 1. SUJIT KUMAR S/O SRI JAYKISHORE SINGH R/O VILL.- CHANDPURA, P.S. DEWARIA KOTHI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 2. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SRI NAGESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL. + P.O.- KAMALPURA, P.S.- PARU, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 3. SAMRENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE BINDA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- GODAI FULKAHA, P.O.- SINGAR FULKAHA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PURNIA-CUM-CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE SELECTION BOARD, CHAMPARAN AREA BOARD, BETTIAH 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE-CUM- CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE SELECTION BOARD, SITAMARHI ----------- 2/ 18/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners were applicants for the post of Constable in the District Police at Motihari, Bettiah and Sitamarhi respectively under advertisement No.1/04. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the counter affidavit is specific that he secured 13 marks in the selection process while the last candidate appointed had 14. The petitioner in his reply to the counter affidavit acknowledges the correctness of the averments. The writ petition has, therefore, no merit insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned and stands dismissed with regard to him. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it has been stated in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit that during videography his total marks were recorded as 13 - 2 - and not 11 as contended in the counter affidavit. If the selection process including the marks awarded on the spot were videographed, the Director General of Police shall examine the video himself and then pass an appropriate order with regard to petitioner No.2 in all its aspects including the cut-off mark, the last candidate appointed based on seniority of date of birth etc. if there be a tie. Insofar as petitioner No.3 is concerned, it has been asserted in paragraph-8 of the writ application that his measurement had wrongly been done, but when he protested re-measurement was done and his marks stood at a total of 13. The two counter affidavits contained no denial of this statement of fact with regard to re- measurement. It simply stated that the petitioner did not secure the qualifying marks. The contention of the respondents is that he secured a total of 10 marks only. If petitioner No.3 deposits a sum of Rs.5000/- along with a copy of the present order before respondent No.4, he shall proceed to re-measure only the chest of the petitioner. If on re-measurement and on the basis of the marks awarded the petitioner secures the qualifying marks and becomes eligible for appointment, the aforesaid sum shall be returned to him. If he fails to qualify even after re-measurement, the sum shall be - 3 - confiscated and deposited in any welfare account maintained by the State Government for the benefit of police officials. Let the order with regard to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 be complied with in its entirety and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)