Judgment 1. The petitioner-appellant has not been appointed on the post of Police Constable in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 1998. In the appeal it is submitted that the petitioner-appellant is a good sportsman and at one stage he has been the informant to the police and these qualities should not be ignored in giving a job of constable. 2. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, there should be no latitude as the basic qualification to the post is matric. In so far as the second aspect whether the petitioner-appellant has been good informant to the police is concerned, in a matter of public employment there is no quid pro quo on this in matters of public employment. 3. It is accepted before the court that the last man, who was provided employment, measured was 181.5 Cms. and the petitioners height is 175.5 Cms. in the circumstances, there is no error in the recruitment method if the last mans height was more than that of the petitioner-appellant. 4. The final submission was that the Chairman of the selection committee had, in fact, recommended the case to condone the short height of the petitioner-appellant. If that be the case, the Chairman of the selection committee had no business to recommend a case for recruitment against the norms of recruitment. 5. The court does not find any error in the order dated 2.4.2003 of the learned judge on the writ petition. 6. Dismissed.