IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2402 of 2009 1. MUNNA PASWAN 2. Shashi Kant Kumar Tiwary 3. Ravi Kant Tiwary ………………………….. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 13.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The matter relates to appointment under Advertisement no. 1/2006 on the post of constable from the Homeguard category. The petitioner no. 1 is stated to be from reserved category while petitioners 2 and 3 are from the general category. They are aggrieved by denial of appointment when they claim that they have been selected. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Para 8 to 11 of the counter affidavit specifically acknowledges their selection and discloses their ranking and marks along with other considerations in accordance with roster when it arrives at the reasoning that they could not be appointed for reason of lack of vacancy in the reserved category as also in the general category filled because of reserved category candidates qualifying on their merit with more marks than the petitioners. The rejoinder does not dispute the factual position. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)