IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17131 of 2009 RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 04/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant in the Home Guard category for the post of Constable against Advertisement No. 01 of 2004. It is his contention that even in the year 2009/2010 appointments are being made under Advertisement no. 01 of 2004. In that context he alleges that though he secured six marks, persons with lesser marks than him have been appointed in the Home Guard category. The pleadings are vague, it does not disclose the name of any such person much less the marks obtained by him. The next submission is that he has been denied appointment as no photograph of his was appended on the nominal roll of Home Guard category for which reason his result was not published. This Court is not persuaded to start a roving enquiry into the appointment at the behest of the petitioner. 2 The fact that his appointment may have been denied for non-annexing of any photograph has to be read in conjunction with his claim of a person with lesser marks than him alleged to have been appointed. If the petitioner files a representation making full disclosure of the name and marks of such person below him and who has been appointed from the Home Guard category causing hostile discrimination, only in that event are the respondents required to consider his representation preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, and not otherwise. This order is subject to the factual foundation urged that in the year 2009/2010 appointments are still being made from the Advertisement no. 01 of 2004. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)