Rajiv Roy, J.—The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2021 passed in CWJC No. 19387 of 2017 by learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah) whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ application on the ground that neither any candidate having lesser marks than that of the petitioner in the Backward category nor any candidate having lesser marks than the cut-off marks in their respective category in the Mains (written) examination have been declared successful with further observation that the private respondents no. 6 and 8 namely Puja Bharti and Priyanka Kumari have qualified under their own category, i.e. backward class women category.

2. The facts relating to the present case is/are as follows:—

On 19.10.2011, the Bihar Public Service Commission (henceforth for short “the BPSC”) issued Advertisement No. 42/2011 for appointment to the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer (henceforth for short “the APO”). The appellant-petitioner was one of the applicant pursuant to the said advertisement under the OBC category.

The examination was conducted in the year 2015 and the petitioner secured 498 marks. He was thus declared not qualified as the cut-off marks for the OBC category was 503 marks. The appellant-petitioner thereafter preferred application under Right to Information Act and it is/was his case that on perusal of the information received by him, he found marks have not been allotted in some questions which otherwise would have taken his marks above the cut-off point.

3. As stated above, the examination was conducted/result of Main examination was declared in 2015 in which the petitioner failed to qualify. On 14.06.2017, the final list was published and case of the appellant-petitioner is that he was surprised to find names of respondent nos. 6 and 7 under the OBC category having secured 485 and 490 marks respectively in the Main examination which was below the 503 marks, the cut-off set for the said category. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner is that although with 498 marks he was declared not qualified, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 despite having lesser marks were called for interview and finally made there way in the list of qualified candidates.

4. On the other hand, the case of ‘the BPSC’ was that the cut off marks for BC category was 503 marks and as the appellant-petitioner secured only 498 marks, he was rightly not called for interview. It was the further case of ‘the BPSC’ that so far as the allegation against respondent nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, they were under Backward Class Women Category, for which the cut-off marks was 483. As they had secured 485 and 490 marks respectively, they were rightly called for interview and finally made it in the merit list. They further submitted that in the year 2017, the final list was published, appointments made and thus the selection process having been over and as such, there is no question of entertaining a fresh claim in the matter. So far as the allegation of the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition against one Jai Prakash Verma is concerned, it was the stand of ‘the BPSC’ that he was under disabled category for which the cut-off marks was 476 whereas he got 494 marks and thus, he too was declared qualified.

5. ‘The BPSC’ further disputed the claim of the appellant-petitioner that he was not granted marks in some questions. According to them, contrary to the statements made therein, the Examiner had indeed given marks for every right answer which the appellant-petitioner had attempted/written in the answer sheet and as such, the claim is fit to be dismissed. Lastly, ‘the BPSC’ brought on record an order of the Division Bench of this Court passed on 29.06.2017 in L.P.A. No. 606 of 2017 by which a co-ordinate Bench of the Court had held that the appellant-petitioner having not taken any action or challenged the evaluation in time; no relief can be granted after lapse of perio