ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. In the instant writ application the petitioner, Sanjay Prasad has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to appoint him on the post of Constable. According to the petitioner, he applied for the post of Constable pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/98 which was published on 27.8.1998 after fulfilling all the requisite qualification. Subsequently, he appeared in the physical examination and he was given receipt and was also allotted a roll number for appearing in the physical test required for the appointment of Constable in the State Police Service. He has stated that he appeared in the said test and also passed but he was rejected on the ground that he did not posses adequate height. According to the petitioner, he belongs to the OBC category but in order to eliminate him, the respondents recorded his height wrongly and disqualified him from recruitment. The petitioner filed representation but no positive result came out as a result of which the petitioner filed the present writ application. 2. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 (S.P. Palamau) and it has been, inter alia, stated that there has been no discrimination so far as the petitioner is concerned and the minimum height of the candidate selected from out of the OBC category was recorded at 178.50 cms. which was greater than the petitioner and that the height of the petitioner as recorded by the Selection Board in the Master Chart was 177.3 cms. and not 177.2 cms. as claimed by him at paragraph-6 of the writ application. The respondents have brought on record the photocopy of the Master Chart as Annexures- A and A/1 which shows that his height was recorded as 177.3 cms. and the petitioner has also put signature on the same. 3. The respondent have further stated that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna Range conducted remeasurement of the height of all those candidates who challenged their measurements which were recorded by the Selection Board but the petitioner, however, did not turn up and the height, therefore, could not be remeasured. The Chart, in relation to remeasurement, has been brought on record as Annexures-B, C and D. 4. The Chart, in relation to remeasurement, has been brought on record as Annexures-B, C and D. 4. When this case was called out on 22.4.2002, learned counsel for the State drew the attention to the judgment delivered in W.P. (S) No. 2644 of 2001. The said writ was filed by one Kundan Kumar Mishra who was also aggrieved for his not having been finally selected pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/98. In his case the learned Single Judge by order dated 26.6.2001, after having taken notice of the fact that another advertisement No. 1/2001 had been issued for appointment to the post of Constables, held that In view of the fact that panel of 1988 having lost its force, he was not inclined to direct the respondent to make appointment out of such stale panel. 5. The aforementioned order was challenged by Kundan Kumar Mishra in L.P.A. No. 380 of 2001. The L.P.A. was also dismissed on 23.1.2002 with an observation that if any fresh recruitment begins for appointment of Constables in the State Police and if the petitioner/ appellants therein was eligible for the same he was at liberty to apply and if he did so, the respondents would consider his case along with other eligible candidate. 6. In that view of the matter and also taking into consideration the orders passed earlier in similar cases, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case. If the State of Jharkhand has issued a fresh advertisement and if the process of fresh recruitment beings, the petitioner is at liberty to apply provided he is eligible on all counts. If he does so, the respondents would consider the case of this petitioner along with the case of other eligible candidates also. 7, With the aforementioned observations this Writ Petition is dismissed.