Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 730 (PAT)

Kailash Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2002-07-11

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In this writ application prayer made by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to accept his joining to the post of constable in Bihar Military Police. 2. Petitioner offered his candidature for being appointed as constable. He was asked to appear in the physical test. In the Master Chart his height was recorded as 174 cms. and on that basis he was offered appointment by letter dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure 1). In the said letter it was made clear that in case there shall be difference in physical measurement from the Master Chart, his candidature shall be cancelled. At that point of time his height was measured as 173 Cms. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although he was offered appointment by letter dated 3.9.2001 but he is not being allowed to join. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eligibility for appointment as a constable in Bihar Military Police is 165 cms. and even if it is assumed that the petitioners height is 173 cms. respondent is under an obligation to permit him to join the post. It is not the stand of the petitioner that persons having the height of 173 cms. have been appointed as constable. 4. Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that even if the petitioner is held to be eligible, that itself will not entitle him for being appointed. He points out that height of the last person appointed is 174 cms. Mr. Sinha in support of his submission has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court dated 15.4.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 2711/ 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. 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 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 impersonate. In the aforesaid permises, 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. Having appreciated the rival submissions I find substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. It is well settled that eligibility to a post shall not entitle the petitioner for appointment as a constable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that, in fact, the height of the petitioner is 174 cms. and it has been rightly entered as such in the Master Chart. He submits that later on erroneously the height of the petitioner has been measured as 173 cms. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is that his measurement at the later stage be quashed and it be declared that the petitioners height is 174 cms. 7. I am afraid this question cannot be adjudicated by this court. True it is, that at one point of time the authority of the State measured the petitioners height to be 174 cms but later on his height has been measured to be 173 cms. 8. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by wrong measurement nothing prevents him from approaching the Inspector General of Bihar Military Police for redressal of his grievance. 9. Needless to state that in case such a request is made, the Inspector General, Bihar Military Police, shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by wrong measurement nothing prevents him from approaching the Inspector General of Bihar Military Police for redressal of his grievance. 9. Needless to state that in case such a request is made, the Inspector General, Bihar Military Police, shall consider the same in accordance with law. To avoid uncalled claim the Inspector General, Bihar Military Police may put conditions as he deems just and proper for such purposes. 10. The application stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.