WP(C) 2654/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioners are aggrieved by their non-selection, for the posts of General D uty Constables in the C.R.P.F. organization. 2. In the first affidavit-in-opposition filed on 9.1.2010 by the D.I.G., C. R.P.F., it was averred that the cut off marks for the OBC category candidate was 45 and the petitioners hadn’t qualified as none of them were able to secure the minimum 45 marks in the recruitment test of Constable/GD-2008. 3. However in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it was specifically averred tha t petitioner No.1 had secured 45 marks, petitioner No.2 had secured 38 marks a nd petitioner No.3 had secured 42 marks. Seeing these averments in the counter a ffidavit which showed that at least the petitioner No.1 had secured the cut off marks in the OBC category, this Court on 23.11.2011 expressed the view that the candidature of the petitioner No.1 should have been favourably considered by t he Selecting Authorities. 4. Subsequently a corrective affidavit has been filed on 2.12.2011 by Mr. B rijesh Pratap Singh, DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Guwahati, where it is averred tha t there was a typographical error in paragraph 8 of the earlier counter affidavi t as the correct marks of the petitioner No.1 was not reflected and erroneously he was shown to have scored 45 instead of the correct 44 marks. Accordingly pray er for correction of the typographical error in paragraph 8 of the earlier affid avit of 9.12.2010, is sought through the additional affidavit filed on 2.12.2011 . 5. The records in original have been produced by Mr. R. Sarma, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to project that each of the petitioners had secured less than the minimum 45 marks in the selection for the OBC category c andidates. 6. I have perused the original records and the same was also made available for perusal of Mr. R. Majumder, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitione rs which confirms the averments of the respondents, in the corrective affidavit. 7. Bearing in mind that the petitioners had scored less than the cut off ma rk, no case is made out by them to challenge the process of selection. According ly the case is dismissed.