IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7095 of 2011 Manoj Kumar Chaudhary son of Satya Narayan Chaudhary, R/o village Paladpur, P.S. Judawanpur, Dist. Vaishali, State of Bihar ----Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through its Secretary, Railway Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Security Commissioner/R.P.F. East Central Railway, Head quarter Hazipur. ---Respondents. ----------- 03 22.07.2011 Heard Mr. Premchandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Railways. Petitioner was an applicant for his appointment as Ancillary Staff in the RPF/RPSF. This was pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2008. The case of the petitioner is that he was called in for physical test in which he appeared and was declared successful. The petitioner now raises a grievance that till today the result of the examination has not been published. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein a stand has been taken that after having noticed that large scale irregularities were committed in the matter of selection of eligible employees by the selection committee the process of selection has been withdrawn/cancelled and all concerned have been informed. This is what the respondents have stated in paragraph nos. 4 and 5:- “4. That it is submitted that the Employment Notice No. 01/2008 dated 07.03.2008 published for recruitment of RPF/RPSF Ancillary Staff was cancelled by the competent authority i.e. Chief Security Commissioner/RPF/Northern Railway, as several irregularities were detected by 2 Scrutiny Committee in process of selection concluded by the selection committee, and a news in this regard was published through Employment News paper. 5. That it is further submitted that the petitioner has been informed through letter no. E/p/RT/Act/05/184/I dated 18.04.2011 that the selection for recruitment of Ancillary Staff vide Employment Notice No. 1/2008 has been cancelled by Chief Security Commissioner/RPF/ Northern Railway.” Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that it is not the case of the petitioner that any such candidate who appeared in the said selection test has been appointed. This Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction based on pleadings on record, cannot command the respondents to publish the result since they have already decided not to go ahead with the said selection process for the reasons set out in the counter affidavit. This Court, therefore, declines the relief(s) prayed for in the application. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )