KUMARI ANITA SINGH @ ANITA KUMARI W/O ANOJ KUMAR AND D/O RABINDRA KUMAR @ RABINDRA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her on the post of constable in Bihar Police Force-2012, as she has qualified in the written test and physical test but her name in final merit list has not been included. At the time of filing of writ petition, petitioner was not aware about the reasons for her non selection but by way of supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner had received information by her application under RTI that she has been disqualified for non submission of date of birth certificate and she has contended that at the time of verification of documents she had submitted date of birth certificate but still she has not been appointed.

(3.) During hearing of the matter, it was informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Selection Board, Patna, Bihar, that even if the writ petition is allowed petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of constable as the cut off marks was 135 whereas the petitioner has obtained 126 marks only. Learned counsel for the Central Selection Board was directed to state on affidavit, the said submissions vide order dated 04.01.2018.