IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1549 of 2010 1. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O SRI MEGHNATH PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL- JILABAD (MATHIA), P.O-JILKABAD, P.S- GARKHA, DISTT- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CENTRAL SELECTION BOARD (CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT), PANT BHAWAN, 4TH FLOOR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-8000001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 4. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL SELECTION BOARD-CUM- DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE INSPECOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SARAN AT CHAPRA 7. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERALOF POLICE, SARAN RANGE, CHAPRA 8. THE CHAIRMAN, SARAN REGIONAL POLICE RECRUITMENT CELL-CUM-SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 30.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under an Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. He has approached this Court after the issuance of Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 acknowledging that he belongs to the backward category (Annexure-II), not in the creamy layer and the last person appointed in that category had 14 marks while the petitioner had 11. Pressing the writ application, learned counsel submits that the impugned order states that 2 30 vacancies in the reserved category of Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 were there. All had not been filled up. There is no foundational pleading in the writ petition in support of this factual assertion when the impugned order states to the contrary that all posts had been filled up. The second submission is that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected despite availability of vacancy without specified reasons. That stand has been answered by the impugned order itself that all the vacancies had been filled up. The third submission was that the Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 does not specify the break up of the vacancies roster wise. In view of the fact that this Court finds no substance in the first two grounds and the petitioner does not claim to be an applicant under Advertisement No. 1 of 2009, the question of considering the last objection by a person not affected by the advertisement does not arise and is purely academic. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)