IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4528 of 2009 Binod Kumar Tiwary, Son of Sri Shashi Bhushan Tiwary, resident of Village- Dharmapura, P.O. Dhamar, P.S. Arrah Mufassil, District- Bhojpur. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. ...Respondents. ----------- 02- 10.4.2009 Heard Mr. Jai Shanker Pathak for the petitioner, Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General No.4 for respondent nos.1 to 4, and Mr. Prashant Kumar Shahi for respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 conducted a selection process for appointment of Sub-Inspectors of Police in the Bihar Police Force, as per Advertisement No.704/2004. The same stated that the estimated number of vacancies were 1500. The petitioner was also candidate and had amongst the other papers opted the paper of “Medieval to Modern History”. After completion of the selection process the State Government enhanced the vacancies by more than 600 posts. 2 The petitioner was not recommended for appointment leading to the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that he has done exceptionally well in the paper of “Medieval to Modern History”, notwithstanding which his name has not been recommended. He prays for production of the answer-book for inspection of the Court and the petitioner. He relies on the judgment in State of Orissa and others Vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta and others, reported in (1996)7 S.C.C. 106. 2. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has opposed the writ petition and submits that the writ petition is based on the petitioner’s self-estimation. He next submits that the present selection was fair and all the appointment letters have been issued. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner’s case is based on the sole ground that he has done exceptionally well in “Medieval to Modern History”. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 is right in his 3 submission that the petitioner’s case is entirely based on the self-estimation which may not be correct assessment of his performance. Secondly, it is a competitive test in which comparative assessment of merits of a large number of candidates has to be done in view of their performance. The petitioner did not find his way in the merit list. Thirdly, the process of appointment is over and appointment letters have been issued. It is not possible to interfere in this matter. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/