IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6150 of 2008 Sundip Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Harendra Singh, Resident of Village-Dharampura, Police Station- Daudpur, District- Saran, Bihar -------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Inspector General of Police Section- C.R.P.F., Digha Complex, Ashiana Nagar, Patna, PIN 800 025. 2. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, L.S. College Compound at Muzaffarpur 3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Veterinary College, Compound, Sheikhpura, Patna . 4. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, L.S. College Compound at Muzaffarpur. 5. Assistant Deputy General, C.R.P.F.at Mokama Ghat, Patna,Bihar --------- Respondents. ----------- 4. 20.10.2008 Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to strike the irrelevant portion of Annexure-1, Page 12. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, namely, Central Reserve Police Force and its functionaries, to appoint him as a Bigular. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The respondents issued an advertisement which appeared in a local daily news paper on 16.6.2007, inviting applications for various posts. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Bigular. There were a total number of 25 vacancies of Bigular, out of whom 16 were reserved for general category, and two were reserved for ex-servicemen category. The petitioner was a candidate for the general category. It appears 2 that he stood at serial number 17. The authorities issued appointment letters to 16 candidates of the general category and naturally, therefore, appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner. The counter affidavit is deficient of both the aspects which are relevant and we feel difficulty in final disposal of the writ petition. In so far as first issue is concerned, the counter affidavit does not state whether or not all the 16 persons to whom appointment letters were issued reported for duties or that the probation of any of them was terminated. In such a situation, vacancies may have occurred and the petitioner may have to be appointed. So far as the second issue is concerned, the advertisement stated that in case two categories reserved for ex- serviceman could not be filled up, the same may be filled up from amongst the candidates of the general category. This question has also not been adequately answered in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that in view of the language of the advertisement, namely,: “HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy, vkjf{kr gS ftldks fd ckn esa ;ksX; HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds ugha vkus dh n”kk esa lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjh tk ldrh gSA (emphasis supplied), it was not imperative for the respondents to fill up the posts in the event of non-availability of candidates of that category. The petitioner’s two representations on record have also remained unattended. In that view of the matter, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents, let the petitioner submit an exhaustive representation alongwith the copy of the present order to respondent 3 no.4 ( Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force), who shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order and in accordance with law. This Court will be pleased that the entire process including the decision to appoint, if yes, within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)