IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14735 of 2009 MANISH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 19.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents is absolutely of no help to this Court in adjudicating the matter. A little carefulness on the part of the deponent to read the averments in the writ petition may perhaps have saved valuable time. The contents of the counter-affidavit disappoint the court. The claim of the petitioner is for appointment on the post of Home Guard from the Rural Seat of Sampatchak Block in the general category. His specific case is that his name was at Serial No. 6 of the Panel and four persons have been appointed. He secured 14 marks. Some of the others appointed have also secured 14 marks. Therefore, in case of tie between two candidates with the same marks, the authorities were required to select on the basis of either date of birth or any other relevant category in accordance with service jurisprudence, but certainly not on the panel position of a candidate. This specific assertion in paragraph no. 15 of the writ application has been answered in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit as a matter of record requiring no comments. 2 The respondent no.3 is required to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with service jurisprudence and the settled principles for appointment in case of a tie between two candidates with similar marks, and pass a reasoned and speaking order he proposes to deny the relief to the petitioner. So that judicial review of the order be facilitated. Let the same be done within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of. U.K. (Navin Sinha,J)