Order Per D.N. Patel, J.: 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an original petitioner, who preferred W.P. (S) No. 856 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th October, 2011. Against this order, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and he had applied for the post of Constable. The appellant was given 15 marks for the examination, conducted by the respondents and after giving 15 marks, one mark is deducted and was brought to 14 marks and, therefore, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 856 of 2010 was preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that similarly situated another candidate, namely, Tej Pal Oraon, who is also a Scheduled Tribe category candidate, having educational qualification of Matriculation, is given 15 marks, whereas, the present appellant is given 14 marks and, therefore, this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th October, 2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition and it has been stated that there was mistake on the part of the respondents in grant of one mark to the appellant and wrongly the original petitioner's qualification was treated as Intermediate in Arts examination. In fact, the original petitioner was only Matriculate and, therefore, additional mark, which was given to the original petitioner, was reduced. Thus instead of total 15 marks, the original petitioner was allotted 14 marks and mistake was corrected. The appellant's height is 170.3 cms. Thus, looking to the overall height and educational qualification, the appellant fetches only 14 marks as a Scheduled Tribe category candidate, whereas, lastly selected candidate in a Scheduled Tribe category has secured 15 marks. It has been stated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, filed by the State in the writ petition, that the height of Sri Tej Pal Oraon is 174.5 cms., who is also a Scheduled Tribe category candidate and looking to his educational qualification, it appears that he has secured 15 marks. It has been stated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, filed by the State in the writ petition, that the height of Sri Tej Pal Oraon is 174.5 cms., who is also a Scheduled Tribe category candidate and looking to his educational qualification, it appears that he has secured 15 marks. Thus, lastly selected candidate in a Scheduled Tribe category is having 15 marks, whereas, the appellant has secured 14 marks and, therefore, rightly the appellant was not appointed as a Constable and this aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, rightly the writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order and, therefore also, this Letters Patent Appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th October, 2011 in W.P. (S) No. 856 of 2010 mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present appellant is an original petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category, had applied for the post of Constable. (ii) Looking to his height and educational qualification, he was given 15 marks, but, there was some error on the part of the respondents that they treated the appellant as an Intermediate in Arts examination passed candidate, which was a mistake on the part of the respondents, as per paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, filed in the writ petition. It ought to be kept in mind by the appellant that the State authorities are not “Errorproofauthority”. The respondents have committed some error and the original petitioner cannot take advantage of the error of the State. The error has been admitted in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit and a mark, which was given to the appellant that his Intermediate in Arts examination was reduced, no sooner did, it was brought to the knowledge of the State that the appellant has not secured Intermediate in Arts examination. Thus out of total 15 marks, one mark was deducted and the appellant has now secured correctly 14 marks. (iii) Now, the question is what are the marks obtained by the lastly selected candidate in Scheduled Tribe category. Thus out of total 15 marks, one mark was deducted and the appellant has now secured correctly 14 marks. (iii) Now, the question is what are the marks obtained by the lastly selected candidate in Scheduled Tribe category. It appears from paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, filed by the State that the marks obtained by the lastly selected candidate under the Scheduled Tribe category is 15 marks. Thus, the appellant has secured marks, less than lastly selected Scheduled Tribe category candidate. Thus, the appellant has no right to be appointed on the post of Constable in Scheduled Tribe category. This aspect of the matter has been rightly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while passing an order dated 18th October, 2011 in W.P. (S) No. 856 of 2010. (iv) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that similarly situated another candidate, namely, Tej Pal Oraon is given 15 marks. This argument is also not accepted by this Court for bringing the appellant in the select list. It has been explained in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that lastly selected candidate in Scheduled Tribe category has secured 15 marks and that candidate's height is 174.5 cms. and his educational qualification is NonMatric. Thus, the height of that candidate is much higher than the height of the present appellant (original petitioner). Thus, it appears that lastly selected candidate has secured more marks than the present appellant. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, preferred by the original petitioner. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.