IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2603 of 2009 Rajesh Mistri Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3/ 08/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Commandant, B.M.P.-9 at Jamalpur cancelling his appointment. The impugned order states that the petitioner belongs to the backward class (Annexure-2). His name came to be inserted by “BELTRON”, the agency for making data entries, as an extremely backward class candidate. He was considered for appointment on the basis of marks obtained as an extremely backward class candidate and given appointment. Subsequently, another candidate, Rakesh Kumar belonging to the backward class with higher marks than the petitioner raised a grievance of arbitrariness and discrimination vis-à-vis the petitioner. The matter was again re-examined with due opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner did not deny or dispute that he belongs to the backward class. The denial of appointment to Rakesh Kumar who had higher marks than the petitioner in that category was therefore wrong. 2 The impugned order states that the petitioner was fully made acquainted with the facts and permitted to submit his defence. He said that he was not at fault. Rakesh Kumar was his friend. The petitioner comes from a backward class and deserves sympathy. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there had been violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Natural justice does not have any strict connotation and what procedure shall be stated to have fulfilled that requirement would depend on the facts of each case. In the facts of the present case when the petitioner has been confronted with all necessary materials and he has been unable to raise any defence, the Court is satisfied that the cancellation suffers from no vice requiring interference. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that his case may be considered sympathetically is best answered by holding that sympathy cannot supplant the law as observed in (State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak) 1 SCC 456:- “25. Furthermore, ordinarily, the writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone.” The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)