Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1039 (PAT)

Ajay Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-24

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 10th of April, 2001 (Annexure-1) whereby the candidature of petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner in pursuance of advertisement no. 1/98 offered his candidature for appointment to the post of Constable in the Bihar Military Police. His height was measured as 175.5 c.m. and he was selected for appointment. Later on, a large number of writ applications were filed before this Court complaining that measurement of the candidates were not correctly taken and in one of the writ applications i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1611 of 2001, disposed of on 6.2.2001, this Court directed for remeasurement of the candidates. On remeasurement, the height of the petitioner was found to be 175.5 c.m. and the height of the last person appointed in the category of the petitioner being 178.5 c.m. his candidature has been rejected. 3. Mr. Ambastha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in terms of the advertisement, the minimum height prescribed for appointment as Constable is 170 c.m. and the petitioners height being more than that his appointment ought not to have been cancelled, I do not find any substance in this submission. 4. As stated earlier, height of the last person who has been selected for appointment as 178.5 c.m. and the height of the petitioner is only 175.5 c.m. Merely because the petitioners height is above 170, that may make him eligible for appointment, but shall not confer on him the right of appointment. In this connection reference can be made to an order of the Supreme Court dated 15.4.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2711 of 2002 in which it has been held as follows : "The respondent had applied for the post of a constable and he was initially selected for being appointed, but at the final stage the Superintendent of Police found his height 168 cms. On that ground no person has been selected whose height is less than 171.5 cm, the Superintendent of Police did not select the respondent. The respondent, therefore, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. On that ground no person has been selected whose height is less than 171.5 cm, the Superintendent of Police did not select the respondent. The respondent, therefore, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. High Court being of the view that the minimum required height being 165 cm the respondent could not have been denied his right of appointment, allowed the writ petition. The State carried the matter to the Division Bench, and Division Bench having confirmed the same, the State is in appeal before us. It has been categorically averred by the State that no person has been appointed as a constable whose height is less than 171.5 cm. and the respondent having been found to be height of 168 cm. could not have been appointed. The assertion has not been refuted by the respondent, though a counter affidavit has been filed. It is not a case of arbitrary redetermination of height but actually a check on impersonation. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that High Court committed error in issuing a Mandamus for appointment of the respondent as a constable. The impugned orders of the Division Bench of the High Court and the learned Single Judge are quashed and this appeal is allowed." 5. Mr. Ambastha then submits that all the time petitioner declared his height to be 175.5 cm. and once he has been selected on that basis, respondents can terminate his service only on the ground indicated in the order of appointment. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. Even at the cost of repetition I may state that the height of last person selected for appointment as Constable is 178.5 cm., Petitioner does not dispute that his height is only 175.5 c.m. In that view of the matter, nothing prevents the respondents from cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. 6. I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly.