IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17865 of 2011 Ajay Kumar Tiwary S/O Shri Jagtanand Tiwary R/O Village- Bariswan, P.O.-Bariswan, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur, Arrah, Bihar ……………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General (Human Rights), Bihar, Patna In The Office Of The Director Generalof Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspector General (Bihar Military Police), Bihar, Patna 5. The Chairman, Central Recruitment Board-Cum-Additional Inspector General Scrb Bihar, Patna 6. The Chairman, Central Region Board No. 1, Patna In The Office Of The D.I.G. Police, Patna 7. The Chairman, Central Region Board No.2, Patna In The Office Of The D.I.G. Police, Patna 8. The Chairman, Central Region Board No.2, Patna In The Office Of The D.I.G. Police, Patna 9. The Chairman Office Of The D.I.G. Police Office, Gaya, Magadh Region Board No.1, Gaya 10. The Chairman Office Of The Dig Police Office, Bhojpur Arrah, Shahabad Region No.1, Bhojpur 11. The Chairman Office Of The D.I.G., Madhepura, Koshi Region, Madhepura 12. The Chairman, Tirhut Region Board No.1, Muzaffarpur Office Of The Dig Police Office, Muzaffarpur 13. The Chairman, North Divison Board No.1 Bihar Military Police, Muzaffarpur Through The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 14. The Chairman Office Of The Dig, Police Office, Chapra, Saran Division Board, Chapra ………………… Respondents ---------------------------------- 03. 25.11.2011 Petitioner has pleaded discrimination in matter of appointment on the post of Constable on the basis of Advertisement No. 2 of 2004. Many a things have been stated in the Writ Application, which are more speculative, not based on any substantive material or ground, emerging from the Annexures, annexed with the Writ Application. The Respondents, however, have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have categorically stated that petitioner 2 could not be appointed on the post for the simple reason that the last man appointed in the general category had 15 marks, whereas, the present petitioner has only 10 marks. There is a huge variance, therefore, in the merit position, from the last appointed person viz-a-viz the present petitioner. In view of such a statement, supported by materials, which have been annexed with the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 10, there is no case of any discrimination or arbitrariness, emerging in the matter of such selection. Writ is devoid of merit, it is dismissed. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)