IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1222 of 2010 SUKHDEO BAITHA S/O LATE BHAGIRATH BAITHA R/O HAPHICHAK, P.S. MAHUA, DISTT. VAISHALI. ………Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (C.I.D.) BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (C.I.D.) BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE BIHAR COMPLAINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS CONTROLLER, I.A.S. BHAWAN, HAWAI ADDA ROAD BIHAR, PATNA ………Respondents ----------- 2. 06.07.2011 None appears on behalf of the parties. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 301 of 2010, and is aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the order of the respondents authorities cancelling the admission of his daughter (Rani Kumari) to M.B.B.S. course, has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record. Rani Kumari, the appellant’s daughter, had appeared at the selection process for admission to the M.B.B.S. course. She had crossed early stage of selection process and had appeared for counselling at which stage the authorities suspected her to be a doubtful candidate. Their suspicion was that Rani Kumari had not appeared for the written test, and someone had impersonated her. Her answer sheet along with her admitted hand writing/ signature was forwarded to the police laboratories, C.I.D. Bihar, Patna, which submitted its report and found that the hand writing in the written test was not of Rani Kumari leading to cancellation of her admission to the course. It is further relevant to state that Rani Kumari was admitted to the course on the basis of her undertaking that her admission shall abide the report of the police laboratory. In view of these circumstances, the respondent authorities cancelled her admission to the course which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge with the liberty to challenge the report of the hand writing expert before the appropriate forum. We agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. Fahad ( S.K. Katriar, J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J. )