IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8096 of 2011 RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Rameshwar Singh, resident of village- Bachari, P.S. Sandesh, Distt. Bhojpur. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G., Munger Range, Munger. 4. The Chairman, Constable Selection, Munger Range Selection Board No.1/04 through the D.I.G. (Human Right), Bihar, Patna. 5. District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Bhojpur. 6. Braj Kishore Singh, son of not known, Roll No.50162 of Advt. No.1/04 appointed in Munger district through S.P., Munger. 7. Dilip Kumar, son of not known, Roll No.33435 of Advt. No.1/04 appointed in Munger District through S.P., Munger. …..Respondents. ----------- 02- 6.5.2011 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Standing Counsel No.24. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him to the post of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement No.01 of 2004. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned Government Counsel. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by preferring C.W.J.C. No.17131 of 2009, ventilating his grievance with respect to his non-appointment on the ground that persons with lesser marks have been appointed. It was further contended that he has not been appointed because no photograph of the petitioner was appended on the enrolment roll of Home Guard category. The writ petition was disposed 2 of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to be disposed of by a reasoned order provided appointments from Advertisement No.01 of 2004 are still being made in the year 2009-10. 3. The petitioner’s representation has since been rejected by order dated 23.9.2010, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had scored six marks and the last candidate appointed to the post of constable had also scored six marks. In other words, no person below him in the merit-list was appointed. Secondly, his photograph was not annexed on the enrolment roll of home-guards. Thirdly, no appointment has been made from Advertisement No.01 of 2004 after 27.7.2008. In view of such reasonings assigned in the order dated 23.9.2010, the most essential condition for maintainability of the petitioner’s representation is not satisfied, namely, no person from Advertisement No.01 of 2004 has been appointed in the year 2009-10. 4. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/