JUDGMENT : Ravi Ranjan, J. The appellant, Central Selection Board of Constable seeks quashing of the judgment dated 03.03.2016 rendered by a single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 17549 of 2015 by which a direction has been given to the respondents to ensure that writ- petitioner/respondent no. 1 is offered appointment letter to facilitate his joining as he has successfully cleared all the tests. 2. Short facts of the case are narrated as under:- The writ-petitioner/respondent no. 1, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2014 published for the purpose of recruitment of 11,783 Constables in District Police and Bihar Military Police had duly applied. There is no dispute that he was declared successful in the written test. The appellant has appended a copy of the final result published by the competent authority as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. The writ-petitioner claims that, even though he has successfully cleared all the tests including the physical test, he was not given employment and, hence, he was compelled to file CWJC No. 17549 of 2015 seeking a direction to consider his appointment against the post of Constable. 4. The respondent-appellant raised objection by filing counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not produce his original matriculation certificate, in the absence of which employment could not be given to him as per the existing rules. Though the writ-petitioner was tried to be consulted through cell phone but that was found switch off every time, therefore, the authorities were left with no option but to disqualify him. 5. The petitioner claims that he had produced the Matriculation certificate and after scrutiny, comparing the copies filed by him with the original, he was allowed to appear in the physical test, therefore, the rejection was arbitrary. 6. The learned single Judge has held that, even if original matriculation certificate was not produced on the date and only original marks-sheet was submitted, that itself was proof of passing the examination and, thus, the rejection is hyper-technical and, as such, benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner. 7. 6. The learned single Judge has held that, even if original matriculation certificate was not produced on the date and only original marks-sheet was submitted, that itself was proof of passing the examination and, thus, the rejection is hyper-technical and, as such, benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner. 7. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the writ-petitioner that the result declared by the appellant as contained in Annexure-5 of the writ petition, itself goes to show that after qualifying in the written test the candidates have to undergo screening tests and what is to be done in the screening has been stated in Annexure-5 itself which is being reproduced as under for better appreciation:- "vH;fFkZ;ksa dh Ldzhfuax ¼lR;kiu@tkWap½ ds fy, ikVfyiq= LiksVZl dkWEiysDl] dadM+ckx] iVuk&800020 dks p;fur fd;k x;k gSA Ldzhfuax ds nkSjku vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lR;kiu fd;k tk;sxkA vH;fFkZ;ksa ds QksVks] vWaxqBsa ds fu'kku vkfn dk feyku fd;k tk;sxk rFkk mudsa fy[kus&i<+us≤>us dh {kerk@;ksX;rk dk vkadyu rFkk muds izek.k&i=ksa dh tkWap dh tk;sxhA vH;fFkZ;ksa dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os Ldzhfuax dh frfFk dks vius izos'k&i=] vius vkosnu&i= dh Nk;kizfr ,oa lHkh ewy izek.k&i=ksa ds lkFk fu/kkZfjr LFky ij mifLFkr gksxsaA" 8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid that during the screening, verification was to be done and the candidates were required to appear along with their original certificates so that the photo copies submitted by them could be compared with the original. After such screening only, the candidates were to be allowed to undergo the physical efficiency test (PET) by issuing a pass to them. The pass issued to the petitioner stands appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner claims that he has passed in the physical test which has not been denied by the appellant. 9. Having considered the aforesaid situation, in our view, the Writ Court has taken a justified stand in granting benefit of doubt to the writ-petitioner as, unless, he would have produced Matriculation certificate, he would not have been issued the PET pass and could not have been allowed to appear in the physical test which he has admittedly qualified. That apart, admittedly, the petitioner has produced the original copy of the marks-sheet of the Matriculation Examination which also shows that he has passed the same. 10. That apart, admittedly, the petitioner has produced the original copy of the marks-sheet of the Matriculation Examination which also shows that he has passed the same. 10. Therefore, in our view, the decision taken by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. As a result, this appeal fails and, is, accordingly dismissed.