JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayant Toppo, the learned S.C.(L&C)-III, appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction to appoint the petitioner against the vacancy of Class-IV post in the District Collectorate of Dhanbad. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the year 2006 an advertisement was published by the respondent no.2 inviting application for filling up the post of Class-IV employees in the District Collectorate of Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has applied and appeared in the examination. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was required to answer 10 questions. In the result, the name of the petitioner did not find figure. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner replied all the 10 questions inspite of that, the petitioner’s name was not published in the final result. He further submits that it has been informed that the petitioner got 8 marks whereas, the persons who got 10 marks were appointed. He further submits that the petitioner is having the knowledge that the persons who got lesser marks than that of the petitioner, have also been appointed. He submits that the petitioner was not appointed, which is an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Jayant Toppo, the learned S.C.(L&C)-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, referring to paragraph nos.6(b) and (c) of the counter-affidavit, submits that the petitioner only got 8 marks whereas, the candidate who has been appointed on the post got 10 marks and that is why, the petitioner has not been appointed. He further submits that so far as the panel is concerned for Class-IV exists for one year only. 4. In view of the above facts and taking into account that the petitioner has got only 8 marks and the panel exists for one year only, no case for interference is made out, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.