IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10948 of 2005 VINAY KUMAR son of Sri Bhagwan Prasad r/o Mohalla- Manpur Kurmi Tola Near Ishwar Chaudhary Halt Post. Buniyadganj, P. S. Mufassil District- Gaya (Bihar). … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The President/Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission. P. O. – Vetnary College, Patna-14 (Bihar) 3. Director General of Police Secretariat, Patna Bihar. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Commissionery Building Gaya (Bihar). … Respondents ----------- 2. 18.01.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That by the instant writ application the petitioner cravingly pray that certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)/ Command may be issued directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as qualified candidate of the physical test of the Sub Inspector Examination held on 2.5.2005 at 7 a.m. at Harihar Subrahmanium Stadium Gaya and accordingly allow the petitioner to appears in subsequent written examination thereof.” Counsel for the State as with regard to the facts mentioned in the counter- 2 affidavit would submit that the petitioner was allowed to compete with others in a selection test which was held on 15.4.05 and he was declared disqualified/failed as he could not compete in the distance running within the prescribed time limit. It has been explained that due to inadvertence, the petitioner was again allowed to participate in the selection held on 2.5.2005 and accordingly the result of the second selection test was not acted upon. In this context, in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the persons who were responsible in extending the second opportunity to the petitioner have also been proceeded departmentally and the charge has been framed against Dhramraj Bind, Assistant and Ramjee Prasad (Section Officer) for their alleged willful misconduct. There is no rejoinder to such counter affidavit and as such it must be held that the petitioner was not entitled for his being selected/appointed for the post in question because he had already been disqualified in the selection test in which he had appeared and was disqualified. 3 That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)