JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Police Constable, and further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to bring the answer sheet of all the female candidates so as to verify, whether any biasness incurred in allotting the marks in the answer sheet. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the case of the petitioner has not been considered in right perspective. 3. A counter affidavit dated 30.10.2012 has been filed by the respondent no.4, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to the post because she obtained only 37 marks, whereas those candidates of the Backward Class-II Category whose date of birth was up to 10.01.1991 in the first list, and up to 05.07.1991 in the second list, obtained 38 marks were selected for appointment. 4. In deference to order dated 24.04.2014, a supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.05.2014 has been filed on behalf of the respondentSuperintendent of Police, Pakur and in the said affidavit averments made in the earlier counter affidavit has been reiterated. Further, it has been submitted that vide Home Department notification dated 19.02.2009 certain amendments were made in the Police Manual with regard to selection/appointment of Constables. Under Clause 11 of the said notification, 50% seats were reserved for the trained Home Guards and the said benefit is only available to those trained Home Guards who have enrolled in the State of Jharkhand and have enrolled for three years with at least 6 months active duty. In absence of suitable Home Guard candidates, the vacancies were to be filled up by the Non-Home Guard candidates vide Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has completed her Home Guard training on 09.11.2009 and the certificate has been issued on 05.01.2010 and, therefore, she has not been considered as Home Guard candidate as per the Clause 11 of the Government Notification dated 19.02.2009. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has completed her Home Guard training on 09.11.2009 and the certificate has been issued on 05.01.2010 and, therefore, she has not been considered as Home Guard candidate as per the Clause 11 of the Government Notification dated 19.02.2009. The petitioner was treated as a BC-II candidate and she has not come within the zone of consideration of BC-II candidate because the last candidate selected under her category secured 38 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 37 marks as per Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner neither fulfils the criteria for consideration under Home Guard category nor she secured the cut off marks compared to the last selected candidate of her category, therefore, she has not been selected. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality on the part of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Constable. 7. In view of the categorical submission made in the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.