Judgment 1. Order Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The prayer in both these applications is for quashing of the order dated 14.11.2006. By the impugned order their candidature for appointment in the Bihar Military Police 13 has been cancelled. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the selection was confined to a physical test only. They both competed and got 14 marks each. The petitioner in CWJC No. 14747/2007 belongs to Backward Class category. Candidates of the said category who secured up to 12 marks have been selected. The petitioner in CWJC No. 15280/2007 belongs to General Category. Candidates securing marks up to 13 have been selected. Before cancellation of their candidature no show cause notice was issued to them and that they have both filed representation, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure 3 in both the writ applications. 4. The physical selection test was videographed by the respondents. The impugned order states that the video film was reviewed by the Members of the Selection Committee on two dates. From the visual of the video film it transpired that both the petitioners had in fact jumped 47" only and were therefore entitled to three marks only but has wrongly been granted four marks by recording that they had jumped 410". When the video film revealed discrepancy one mark has been deducted from each of them to bring them down from their uniform marks of 14 to 13 marks each. 5. The petitioners were at the thresh hold of their entry into service in a Uniformed Disciplined Force. The controversy of their conduct which has cropped up at the stage of their initial entry into service itself of which they were the direct beneficiaries coupled with the video film prepared by the authorities on the basis of which the Selection Committee has founded its opinion, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere on facts with the impugned order dated 14.11.2006. Given the nature of the allegations supported by the video film this Court in its discretionary jurisdiction is not persuaded to consider even the latter submission of the petitioners that even if they had secured 13 marks each they were still entitled for consideration for appointment on higher marks obtained amongst the candidates in the respective categories. To that extent the writ applications are dismissed. 6. To that extent the writ applications are dismissed. 6. However since the petitioners are stated to have filed representations, the dismissal of the writ petitions shall not inhibit the authorities from consideration of the same in their wisdom.