IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17216 of 2009 1. RANA PRATAP SINGH S/O UDAY SINGH VILL MAJHARIYA . P.O. MAJHARIYA, P.S.INDUSTRIAL AREA, DISTT-BUXAR 2. MUNAN PANDIT S/O RAM LAYAK PANDIT VILL MEHIYAN, P.O. GURUKUL MEHIYAM, P.S.MUFFASIL, DISTT-SARAN 3. CNANDESHWAR PAL S/O SRI BHIMAL PAL VILL NIRANPUR, P.O.KATAIYA, PS.BIHIYAN,DISTT-BHOJPUR 4. RINKU KUMAR RAJAK S/O SRI SUSHIL KUMAR RAJAK VILL KAKANDIHARA, P.O.MANIYA,PS.SANDESH, DISTT-BHOJPUR 5. KRISHNA KUMAR MANDAL S/O SRI BISHWANTH MANDAL VILL GANGADAH, P.O. MEHANIYA, P.S. BAHARI,DISTT-DARBHANGA 6. SATESH KUMAR MEHRA S/O SRI LALJI RAM VILL PANANI, P.O.CHUNNI, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTT-BUXAR 7. PAPPU KUMAR S/O BHARAT PRASAD VILL CHATUR BHALGANJ DUMRAON, P.S.DUMRAON,DISTT-BUXAR 8. SATYENDRA PRASAD S/O MAHAVIR PRASAD VILL &P.O.DULLAHPUR, P.S.SIMARI,DISTT-BUXAR 9. RANJIT KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI TEJ PRATAP SINGH VILL MATHWALIYA,P.O.DAULATPUR, P.S.MUFFASIL, DISTT-BHOJPUR 10. SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR S/O SRI JHAMAN RAM VILL CHATAR,P.O.VAMANGANWAN, P.S. BARHARA,DISTT-BHOJPUR 11. BINAY KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM SHANKAR SINGH VILL DEVIDEHRA, P.O.NAGPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTT-BUXAR 12. SANTOSH PRASAD GUPTA S/O SRI UMESHWAR PRASAD VILL ARJUNPUR, P.O.ARJUNPUR, P.S. INDUSTRIAL AREA, DISTT-BUXAR 13. AJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RAMESHWAR SINGH VILL PANNAPUR, P.S.HURDIYAN, P.S.JAGDISHPUR,DISTT-BHOJPUR ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G.CUM I.G.OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE SAHABAD RANGE, DEHRI ON SONE, ROHTAS 4. THE CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE SAHABAD BOARD 1 SMT .R.M.VIZZY S.PAT H.Q.BIHAR, PATNA ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 02 04.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The claim is to be considered for appointment on the post of Constable under an advertisement of the year, 2004. There is no pleading in the writ application 2 that any person with lesser marks than the petitioners have been appointed or that person below in the merit panel have been appointed, ignoring their claims. Learned counsel for the State rightly contends that being called for counselling does not tantamount to appointment, as already held by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12454 of 2009. This Court is not persuaded to start a roving inquiry into the appointments at the behest of the petitioners in an inconclusive writ petition. If the petitioners file a representation making full disclosures of arbitrariness and discrimination by appointment of a person with lesser marks or below them in the merit panel, only in that event are the respondents required to consider their representation and not otherwise. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)