IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14029 of 2006 Raj Kumar Singh, son of Sri Devmuni Singh, resident of Village- Jai Nagar, Patna Gadi Road, Madhubani, P.S. Jai Nagar, District- Madhubani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, East Block, New Delhi. 3. The Assistant Director, General (Recruitment) Sashastra Seema Bal, East Block, New Delhi. 4. The Inspector General, Sashastra Seema Bal, Patna, Bihar. 5. The Deputy Inspector General, Sashstra Seema Bal, Madhubani, Bihar. ..... Respondents. ----------- 05- 11.12.2008 Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh No.1 for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, learned Central Government Counsel. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Sashastra Seema Bal to appoint him as Constable. The respondents have placed on record two sets of counter affidavits, and have also produced the original records relating to the selection process in question which has been made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner for his inspection and perusal. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears 2 that the respondent authorities had issued an advertisement for appointment of Constables. The petitioner was a candidate and had qualified for the final round of the selection process. A photo copy of his Admit-card is marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition and he was assigned Roll No.050902000542. On completion of the selection process, the result were published, a photo copy whereof is marked Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner’s roll number is at serial no.9. The petitioner did not receive appointment letter leading to the Lawyer’s notice dated 4.8.2006 (Annnexure-4). The respondent authorities replied to the same by communication dated 25.8.2006 (Annexure-5), wherein it is stated that on account of typographical error the petitioner’s roll number erroneously appeared at serial no.9 of the result in place of Roll No.050903000542 (Shishu Chadam), who got promoted to serial no.4 of the final selection list for Bihar on account of elimination of certain candidates. He has scored 67 marks. The petitioner felt dissatisfied with the reply leading to the present writ petition. 3 3. It appears to us on a perusal of the original records as well as the counter affidavits that the respondent authorities have filled up a total of 385 posts of constables from amongst the general/unreserved category. The first candidate in the merit list bearing Roll no.050902000767 (Viveka Nand Jha) has scored 73 marks, the candidate at serial no.367 (Ashok Kumar),having Roll no.050902000843 has scored 52 marks, and the candidate at serial no.385 (Rajeev Kumar) bears Roll no.050901000824 has scored 52 marks. The petitioner had scored 48 marks. It thus appears that no person with lesser marks has been appointed and his roll number has appeared in Annexure-2 inadvertently. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials on record including the original records, I am of the view that the respondent authorities have not issued appointment letter to the petitioner for a valid reasons. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 4