Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 544 (JHR)

State Of Bihar v. Laxman Singh

2002-05-02

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.1997 passed in CWJC No. 641 of 1997 (R) whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ application and quashed the order as contained in letter dated 23.9.1996. 2. It appears that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of constable in pursuance of the advertisement published in the newspaper. The petitioner appeared in the examination and interview and also in physical test. The height of the petitioner was found 172 cm. It was contended by the petitioner that the minimum height fixed in the advertisement was 160 cm. The appointment of the petitioner was denied on the ground that he was found 172 cm. 3. Respondents, in the counter-affidavit, have stated that pursuant to the advertisement, the respondents authorities decided to appoint the persons who were having maximum height. It was contended that since the other candidates have been found much above the height of the petitioner, the petitioner was denied appointment. 4. Learned single Judge held that once the criteria and the conditions prescribed in the advertisement, the same cannot be altered to the detriment of the candidates who have applied to the said post pursuant to advertisement. It was further held that height of the petitioner was found more than the height prescribed in the advertisement and, therefore, the order denying appointment to the petitioner was unjustified. 5. It is true that the conditions prescribed in the advertisement should not be altered to the detriment of the candidates who have applied to the said post pursuant to the advertisement but there was no condition in the advertisement that persons having 160 cm. height shall be given appointment, rather only the minimum height of the candidates was prescribed as 160 cm. In other words, candidates whose minimum height was 160 cm. and above, were eligible to apply for the said post. The respondents selected those candidates whose height are much above 160 cm. It is not the case of the petitioner that persons having less height than the height of 172 cm have been appointed. It was also the case of the respondents that the candidates who have been found to be much suitable having height more than the height of the petitioner, have been appointed. In such case, denial of appointment to the petitioner was not illegal or arbitrary. It was also the case of the respondents that the candidates who have been found to be much suitable having height more than the height of the petitioner, have been appointed. In such case, denial of appointment to the petitioner was not illegal or arbitrary. A single Bench of this Court in a Batch of writ applications, namely, CWJC Nos. 2235, 2241, 2243, 2246, 2247, 2249, 2266 and 2282 of 2000 has considered a similar question and held that there is no illegality if most suitable candidate having height of more than the height prescribed in the advertisement are appointed on the post of the constable. 6. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge was not correct in law in holding that respondents could not have refused appointment to any person whose height was found more than the height prescribed in the advertisement. Taking into consideration all the facts of the case, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge.