IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3689 of 2011 Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh S/o Sri Babulal Singh R/o village- Makaraudha P.O. Nawada Bazar, PS- Rajaun, Distt.- Banka------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Social Empowerment & Welfare Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman 5. The Chairman , BPSC, Bailey Road, Patna 6. The Secretary, BPSC, Bailey Road, Patna 7. Sudarshan Kumar Kashyap, S/o not known Roll No. 135778 through the Secretary, BPSC, Patna 8. Heera Lal Nag S/o not known Roll No. 304240 9. Poonam Kumari D/o not known Roll No. 250560 10. Sanjay Kumar S/o not known Roll No. 314664 11. Rajiv Ranjan S/o not known Roll No. 182595, All through the Secretary, BPSC Bailey Road, Patna--- --------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Selection on various posts in terms of the Advertisement No. 4/2007 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission and appointments made thereto under the physically handicapped category is the bone of contention in the present writ petition. Non-selection or non- appointment of the petitioner on any of the post especially from the category of hearing impaired persons to which the petitioner belongs has been labeled as an arbitrary decision of the Bihar Public Service Commission. A direction has been prayed for his appointment as he has the requisite qualifying marks in this regard. In the writ petition it has been said that persons with lesser marks than the petitioner have come to be appointed ignoring his claim and he further submits that out of 11 candidates who were short-listed for 2 appointment, 10 of them have been offered to only one category of handicapped and one post went to the visually impaired and none to hearing impaired. Petitioner’s right therefore stood jeopardised because the respondents have not fairly given reservation of 3% across the board. On a direction given by this Court to Bihar Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit and explained the mechanism under which such posts have been filled up. There is categorically denial of any wrong doing on their part in selection and appointment under physical handicapped category. Their first stand is that the reservation under the physical handicapped has not been offered to candidates vertically but horizontally meaning thereby that benefit of reservation has been given to all category of persons who are entitled for reservation in such appointment. Besides the General category other people who had been given benefit of reservation are persons from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Class, Backward Class and Backward Class Women. It is their stand that the total number of vacancies had been worked out on the basis of the requisition by departments and vacancy position was calculated for each and every category. 3% reservation for physically handicapped was given in each category. The calculation with regard to vacancies available for each and every category have been tabulated in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit and the category to which the petitioner is a claimant comes under backward class. There is only one post which was required to be filled up from the disabled category and only one man who came to be appointed against that post had 811 marks whereas the petitioner had secured 797 marks. If this is the actual position then there is no occasion 3 to juggle the figures and make appointment of persons beyond one post which was available for backward class. Further the selection and appointment in all class of persons seeking reservation was based on the roster clearance approved by the State. Submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the manner in which the allocation of reservation has been given has not been strictly followed in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government in this regard. He relies on the so called reservation policy/circular issued by the State Government on 5th January, 2007 as well as the so called discussion which the Commission had on the issue. With due respect to learned Senior counsel such submissions are for submissions sake and warrant rejection on the face of it, in view of the clear factual position emerging with regard to number of vacancy available and the percentage of marks which the selected candidate had vis-à-vis the present petitioner. Since there was only one post to be filled up for the category to which the petitioner was claimant he cannot claim discrimination with regard to other candidates who came to be appointed either in the general category or other categories which have been noted by the Court in the earlier part of the order. The allegation therefore made by the petitioner with regard to discrimination is more made that made out. No direction is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. This writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)