Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of constable, cancel the appointment of respondent no.7 as being discriminatory and arbitrary and make enquiry with regard to the irregularities committed in an appointment of the constables through an independent agency. 2. The facts of the case lie in the narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement no. 2/1995 was issued for selection of constables in all the districts in Bihar. The said advertisement was published in the Newspaper, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement a large number of candidates including the petitioner, who belong to the reserve category, applied for the said post to the district of Muzaf- muzffarpur. The petitioner appeared in the physical test and his height was measured as 510". After undergoing all the tests he was duly selected and his name was published on the notice Board of the Muzaffarpur reserve office. Thereafter, the appointments of constable in the district of Muzaffarpur were made on the basis of the said selection but the petitioner was not appointed. He represented the matter before the higher authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur pointing out the irregularities made in the matter of appointment. It was asserted by him in the representation that persons who did not participate in the selection test such as respondent no.7 having lesser height than him have been appointed, copies of that representation have been annexed as Annexures 6 & 7 to the writ application but the authorities did not take any action and then he filed the present writ application. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent no.10), the Director General of Police (respondent no. 2), the D.I.G. (Administration) (respondent no.3), the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.6) and the private respondent no. 7 (Pawan Kumar Yadav). 4. First counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur wherein the stand taken by him is that out of the appointments made in 1993, 95 & 96 only four candidates in each year have been appointed on Special ground like compassionate ground. 7 (Pawan Kumar Yadav). 4. First counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur wherein the stand taken by him is that out of the appointments made in 1993, 95 & 96 only four candidates in each year have been appointed on Special ground like compassionate ground. A copy of the list of recruitment made in the year, 1994 & 95 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. With regard to the respondent no.7 it is stated that he was appointed by order of the Director General of Police which was communicated to him by order of the A.I.G. (I), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, this Court directed the D.G.P. to file a counter affidavit to show as to under what authority of law the appointments of constable have been made on his direction. 5. Thereafter, the D.G.P. filed a counter affidavit on 13.3.99 wherein the stand taken by him in the counter affidavit is that respondent no.7 was not a candidate in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement no. 2/1995. He was appointed seperately as special case by the order of the police headquarter. It is further stated that with regard to the recruitment made on special ground such as bravery matter has been clarified by the then D.G.P. in a letter addressed to the Chief Secretary. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure B to the counter affidavit. It is stated therein that D.G.P. has power under section 12 of the Police Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to make such appointments on the ground of bravery and other factors based on specific recommendation of the senior and responsible officers. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on his behalf wherein it is stated that in terms of the provisions of rule 661(c) of the Bihar Police Manual the Selection Board is not precluded from appointing persons for special reasons and on good ground even if they did not fulfil the criteria of appointment. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on his behalf wherein it is stated that in terms of the provisions of rule 661(c) of the Bihar Police Manual the Selection Board is not precluded from appointing persons for special reasons and on good ground even if they did not fulfil the criteria of appointment. It is also stated the D.G.P. has power to direct for appointment of constable even without fulfilling the norms prescribed in the police manual for the reason that he has authority under the police manual to frame conditions of selection and he has power to constitute selection board and as such he has inherent power to decide as to what could be special reasons and which could be good ground and, accordingly, approves the proposal submitted by the Superintendents of Police, who are Chairman of the selection committee, for appointment of constables on special ground. The D.G.P. has never made any appointment. He only on the basis of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police has accorded approval of appointment. It is also stated that there is long convention of making appointments on the direction of the D.G.P. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the D.I.G. (A) respondent no.3 it is stated that the petitioner was not selected as he did not come into the merit list prepared by the selection committee. According to the provision laid down in police order no.202/1988 height is ihe only criteria for selection of the candidates for appointment from amongst the panel of successful candidates, who passed in all the tests. Since the height of the petitioner was much less than the last selected candidate in the category he was not selected for appointment. A copy of the police order no. 202/1988 has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit. It was further stated that the respondent no.7 was appointed on the order of the police headquarter and not in pursuance of the advertisement no. 2/1995 on the ground of exemplary bravery exhibited by him in the several cases of Madhubani district. The case of the petitioner is not similar to his case. 7. It was further stated that the respondent no.7 was appointed on the order of the police headquarter and not in pursuance of the advertisement no. 2/1995 on the ground of exemplary bravery exhibited by him in the several cases of Madhubani district. The case of the petitioner is not similar to his case. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the appointment to the post of constables is made in accordance with the provision of rule 661(b) of the Bihar Police Manual, according to which the appointment is made by the District Superintendent of Police for which a list is prepared by the selection board duly constituted for the purpose. The D.G.P. has not been given any discretionary power to make appointment in this regard. It is further stated that the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has fixed a procedure for appointment on compassionate ground in case of premature death of the employees and in that case the appointment has to be made by the District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate. The appointments made on the direction of the D.G.P. are under consideration of the State Government. 8. The respondent no. 7 in his counter affidavit has stated that he has been appointed on the Direction of the D.G.P. as contained in letter dated 9.8.96 on the ground of bravery. His appointment has been made totally on different footing and as he was not in the list of generally selected persons rather he was found fit for the post by the D.I.G. on the ground of bravery. 9. The petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit wherein apart from reiterating the facts which have been stated in the petition, he has further stated that the D.G.P. has no power to make appointment of constable directly and the direction given by him in police order no. 202/1988 has not been followed as petitioner having height of 177.80cms. has been discriminated by appointing large number of persons having lesser height than him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the provisions of the Police Manual issued under sections 7 & 12 of the Act, 1861 as well as the police order no. 202/1988 has not been followed as petitioner having height of 177.80cms. has been discriminated by appointing large number of persons having lesser height than him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the provisions of the Police Manual issued under sections 7 & 12 of the Act, 1861 as well as the police order no. 202/1988 issued by the D.G.P. a prescribed mode for appointment to the post of constable has been provided and as such the respondents can make appointment only by following that mode and not by any other mode. The respondent no.7 was not appointed by following the prescribed mode or rule. As such his appointment is arbitrary and illegal. It is further stated that in terms of the police order no.202/1988 in case the successful candidates are more than the vacancy the height is the only criteria for selection but the respondents have not followed the said prescribed procedure in as much as the petitioner having the height of 177.80cms. was not appointed whereas the persons of the same category having lesser height have been arbitrarily appointed. 11. Learned Addl. Advocate General 1 appearing on behalf of the State submitted that persons having lesser height than the petitioner have not been appointed. He has further submitted that there are two types of appointment, namely, appointment in normal course and appointment on special ground. The procedure for appointment in ordinary course is contained in the Police Manual supplement by police order no. 202/88. So far the appointment on special ground is concerned it is not provided in the police manual that the D.G.P. being the head of the administration has power under section 12 of the Act to make or issue any direction for appointment of constable directly without following the prescribed procedure. He has submitted that even if there is no specific provision authorising the D.G.P. to make appointment this will be treated only an omission and on that ground the appointment made by the D.G.P. cannot be said to be without any authority of law. 12. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 7 has submitted that the petitioner in the writ application has not challenged the appointment of the respondent no. 7 and as such his name should be expunged from the record. In the alternatively he submitted that in case the name of respondent no. 12. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 7 has submitted that the petitioner in the writ application has not challenged the appointment of the respondent no. 7 and as such his name should be expunged from the record. In the alternatively he submitted that in case the name of respondent no. 7 is not expunged then his appointment cannot be nullified as he was appointed by the D.G.P. on the ground of bravery, who is competent to make appointment. 13. At the out set, I dispose of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent no. 7. The petitioner in paragraph 2(ii) of the writ application has stated that the appointment of respondent no. 7, who has height of 5 7", ignoring his claim, whose height is 5. 10", is arbitrary and discriminatory and against the spirit of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Only, because a prayer to that effect has not been made it cannot be said that the appointment of respondent no. 7 has not been challenged. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent no. 7 is rejected. 14. The primal question that arises in this case is as to whether the D.G.P. has power to direct for appointment of constable de hors the rule governing the appointment of constable as contained in the police manual as well as the order issued by the D.G.P. being police order no. 202/1988. 15. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law or equal protection of the law. Article 16 of the Constitution which is one of the facet of the application of the general rule of the equality as contained under Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity to all the citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or of any other employment, subject to the exception as contained in the aforesaid Article. 16. The public employment is a national wealth or property which has to be shared by all the citizens subject to the prescribed qualification for a particular post. This goal cannot be achieved unless the procedure for appointment to the public office is just, fair and reasonable. The appointment cannot be made to the public office in an arbitrary manner with a view to give patronage to some people. This goal cannot be achieved unless the procedure for appointment to the public office is just, fair and reasonable. The appointment cannot be made to the public office in an arbitrary manner with a view to give patronage to some people. No authority however high he may be will be given unbridled power to appoint any person according to his likes without laying down any mode or any criteria for the post. Vesting of such power will amount to conferring arbitrary power of patronage and nepotism. 17. Section 12 of the Act empowers the I.G. Police (D.G. of Police in this State) to make rules with regard to the matters enumerated therein with the approval of the State Government and with regard to certain matter without approval of the State Government. The Bihar Police Manual, 1978 has been issued by and with the authority of the State Government under section 7 or 12 of the Act. Chapter 20 of the said Police Manual deals with the appointment and enrolments. The relevant rules for the purpose are rule 661 (b) and rule 663 which run as follows : Rule 661(b). By whom appointed: Constables shall be appointed by the District Superintendent of Police for which a list will be prepared by the selection Board duly constituted for the purpose. Rule 663. Selection of recruits :- (a) Strong, healthy young men between the ages of 19 and 27 years and who have passed secondary (i.e. Matriculation) examination shall be selected as recruits as far as possible. The standard of physical tests shall be same as given in Apendix 38, clause 9 for Sub-Inspectors. For Scheduled castes and tribes, the upper age limit is up to 32 years and educational qualification can be reduced to middle pass if matriculates are not available. The standards of height and chest measurements are given below. (c) The selection board is not precluded from selecting men over 27 years of age, or for special reasons, men beneath the standard of measurement, but it shall do so only on good grounds. Before enlistment the Dy. Inspector General can give relaxation in height and chest by 2.5 cms. 18. Rule 661(b) provides that constables shall be appointed by the District Superintendent of Police on the basis of a list prepared by the Selection Board duly constituted for the purpose. Rule 663(a) provides qualification and other requirements for appointment. Before enlistment the Dy. Inspector General can give relaxation in height and chest by 2.5 cms. 18. Rule 661(b) provides that constables shall be appointed by the District Superintendent of Police on the basis of a list prepared by the Selection Board duly constituted for the purpose. Rule 663(a) provides qualification and other requirements for appointment. Rule 663(c) provides that selection board is not precluded from selecting men above the age or for special reasons, men below the standard prescribed for appointment but it shall be only on good ground. However, before enlistment the D.I.G. can give relaxation in height and chest by 2.5.cms. only as provided therein. Appendix 72(4) provides that the selection board known as Superintendents Board shall be constituted consisting of Superintendent of the district as President and the Superintendent of another district of the range and the District Welfare Officer as members. 19. The D.G.P. in exercise of power under section 12 of the Act issued a police order no. 202/88 which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 and the same contains a detail procedure with regard to the requirement of physical measurement, age, educational qualification, written test for appointment to the post of constables. It is contained therein that in case where the selected candidates are more than the vacancy then the selection will be made on the basis of the height. In case if the two persons are of the same height in that case the educational qualification should be the basis for appointment. Thus, in terms of the provisions of the police manual and the police order no.202/1988 which has been issued by the respondent no.2 the appointment to the post of constables has to be made by the Superintendent of Police of the district on the basis of the recommendation of the selection board. The selection board has to select a candidate in terms of the provisions contained in the police manual as well as police order no, 202/88. No other mode of appointment to the post of constable has been provided in the police manual or in the Government order. 20. The selection board has to select a candidate in terms of the provisions contained in the police manual as well as police order no, 202/88. No other mode of appointment to the post of constable has been provided in the police manual or in the Government order. 20. The law is well settled that when a power is vested in a particular authority to do a thing then that authority alone can do the thing and no person or the authority can exercise that power [See Commissioner of Police, Bombay V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji, A.I. R. 1952 S.C. 16.] 21. The Addl.Advocate General submitted that rule (sic section ?) 12 of the Act empowers the D.G.P to make appointment. The aforesaid argument has to be rejected out right for the simple reason that section 12 empowers the D.G.P. to make rules or frame orders with regard to the matters enumerated therein including mode for selection of constables this section does not empower him to make or issue direction for appointment of the individual constable by issuing orders de hors the Rules. 22. Rule 663(c), as quoted above, which has been relied upon by the Addl. Advocate General, empowers the Selection Board to make relaxation in height etc. as provided therein only in exceptional cases. It does not authorise the D.G.P. to direct for appointment of constable on special ground. At this stage, I have grave doubt about the validity of the aforesaid rule empowering the selection board to select candidate on special ground by relaxing the rule. As that question is not in controversy in this case I am not expressing any opinion. As such in no case rule 663(c) empowers the D.G.P. to direct or make appointment of constables. 23. The submission advanced on behalf of the Addl. Advocate General that the D.G.P. has inherent power to make appointment has been noticed only for the purpose of rejection. No authority however high and powerful he may be has inherent power to make appointment in the public office unless he is authorised in law to make the appointment. If the submission advanced on behalf of the Addi.Advocate General is accepted then that will give unfettered and unbridled power to the D.G.P. and his position will be levelled to that of a King who can pass any order according to his likes and desires. 24. If the submission advanced on behalf of the Addi.Advocate General is accepted then that will give unfettered and unbridled power to the D.G.P. and his position will be levelled to that of a King who can pass any order according to his likes and desires. 24. Thus, I find no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the D.G.P. has power to make or direct for appointment of constables on a special ground like bravery etc. or on any special ground de hors the rules prescribed in the police manual as well as the order issued from time to time. 25. In the case of Channabasavaih & Ors. V/s. State of Mysore and others, AIR 1965 S.C. 1293 a notification was issued for appointment to Class I & Class II posts on the basis of the viva-voce test and the appointments were made by the State Government of the candidates who faced the viva-voce test on the basis of their placement in the merit list. Some persons not having faced the viva-voce test and some candidates having secured lesser marks than the candidates who were not appointed inspite of having higher position in the merit list were appointed by the State Government. Thereafter, the appointments were challenged. The Apex Court cancelled the appointment of those candidates who had not faced the viva-voce test or who have secured lesser marks. It was held that such a dealing with public appointments is like to create a feeling of distrust in the working of the Public Service Commission which is intended to be fair and impartial and to do its work free from any influence from any quarter. 26. In the case of Dilip Kumar Tripathy and others V/s. State of Orissa and others, (1996) 10 S.C.C. 373 the select list for appointment of constable/sepoy was prepared contrary to the prescribed procedure for appointment. The Apex Court held that the list prepared contrary to the prescribed procedure has to be scrapped. It has further held that appointment to any public post must be fair and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 27. As there is prescribed procedure for appointment of constables the appointment cannot be made contrary to that. The Apex Court held that the list prepared contrary to the prescribed procedure has to be scrapped. It has further held that appointment to any public post must be fair and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 27. As there is prescribed procedure for appointment of constables the appointment cannot be made contrary to that. No provision has been brought to the notice of this court empowering the D.G.P. to issue direction for appointment of a person who has not been selected in terms of the rules. Thus the appointment of respondent no.7 to the post of constable is wholly arbitrary and illegal and accordingly the same is quashed. 28. From perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, it appears that large number of persons under backward category including respondent no. 7 having lesser height than the petitioner have been appointed. There is no dispute that the petitioner was declared successful in all the tests and his name was included in the select list and as such his case should have been considered for appointment alongwith other candidates on the basis of the height in terms of the order no.202/88. As the persons of reserve category having lesser height than the petitioner have been appointed the authorities have discriminated against the petitioner in the matter of appointment. 29. The statement made in the counter affidavit of respondent no.3 that no person having lesser height than the petitioner has been appointed is a deliberate false statement to mislead the court as Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, as stated above, clearly show that the persons having lesser height than the petitioner have been appointed as constables. 30. Thus, the petitioner has made out a case for direction to consideration of his case for appointment. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of constable. So far the appointment of respondent no.7 is concerned the same being illegal and impermissible in law is cancelled. 31. From perusal of the materials on the record it appears that large number of constables have been appointed on the direction of the D.G.P and the matter is under consideration of the State Government.. The State Government is directed to consider and take a final decision in the matter. 32. 31. From perusal of the materials on the record it appears that large number of constables have been appointed on the direction of the D.G.P and the matter is under consideration of the State Government.. The State Government is directed to consider and take a final decision in the matter. 32. In the result, the writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observation.