Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 600 (PAT)

Sheela Kumari Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2006-07-13

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned S.C.I for the State. 2. Petitioner seeks direction on the respondents to appoint her on the post of constable in Gaya or Nawadah District. The case of the petitioner is that she is a B.C. Annexure-II woman candidate and her height is 164.5 c.m. and being Intermediate passed and she is otherwise fit for appointment as a constable in Bihar. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/99 petitioner after physical and other teats was found fit for appointment on the poet of constable. After the results were announced on 6.1.2000 the petitioner found that three candidates having height 164 c.m. and 163.5 c.m. have been appointed but the petitioner was not appointed although her height was 164.5 c.m. On enquiry she was informed that she has been measured as 163 c.m. The petitioner then filed representation before the authorities and ultimately she was remeasured by the D.I.G., Magadh Range as 164.5 c.m. put despite she has not been appointed. The petitioner thereafter filed C.W.J.C. No. 13750/02, which was disposed of by order dated 7.1.2003 with the direction that the petitioner may represent her case before respondent No. 2, the Director General of Police, Bihar which would be considered in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of this Court petitioner filed representation before the D.G.P. Bihar but the same has been rejected by order contained in Memo No. 3106 dated 21.8.2003. In the said order of the D.G.P. it is stated that in terms of the Advertisement No. 1/98 the last woman candidate was appointed at the height 163.5 c.m. whereas the height of the petitioner was found at the first measurement 163 c.m. It is further admitted that thereafter the Deputy Inspector General of Police had given an Advertisement for remeasurement and the petitioner had applied three days after the last date given therein but it is admitted that her height on such remeasurement by the D.I.G. had been found to be 164.5 c.m. However, the said measurement had been rejected only on the ground that remeasurement was ordered even in the case of the petitioner who had applied three days after the last date for applying for remeasurement. A further ground for rejection as stated in the order is that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1208 of 2000 and its analogous cases by order dated 4.2.2001 had directed the authorities to publish advertisement for remeasurement and accordingly it was advertised but the petitioner had not applied for the same. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have applied again for remeasurement in terms of the order of this Court dated 4.2.2001 because in her case she had already appeared for remeasurement by the D.I.G and her remeasurement had taken place on 12.9.2000. So far as the order of this Court dated 4.2.2001 is concerned the same could apply only in case of such candidates who had not yet been measured again and were claiming for remeasurement. 4. Learned Counsel for the State however submits that the panel against the Advertisement No. 1/93 has been closed and, therefore, there cannot be any direction for appointment of the petitioner. It is not denied by the State counsel or in the counter affidavit that there is nothing wrong in remeasurement taken by the D.I.G., Magadh Range, Gaya. 5. In the aforesaid circumstance, this Court finds force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Once it is admitted by the respondents that the last appointed female candidate had a height of 163.5 c.m. and the petitioner also had been remeasured by a competent authority and her height was found to be 164.5 c.m. then merely on the ground that she had applied three days after the earlier advertisement issued by the D.I.G. and the same was done on 12.3.2000 cannot be considered as a valid defence. If a candidate could be measured even after the direction of this Court by order dated 4.2.2001, then there is no valid reason for reelecting of remeasurement much prior to that date on 12.3.2000. Thus the ground taken in the order of the D.G.P. Bihar appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 21.3.2003 passed by the D.I.G. on the direction of the D.G.-cum-Inspector General of Police, Patna as contained in Annexure-8 is quashed. The authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner if she is otherwise fit for appointment. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the order dated 21.3.2003 passed by the D.I.G. on the direction of the D.G.-cum-Inspector General of Police, Patna as contained in Annexure-8 is quashed. The authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner if she is otherwise fit for appointment. If any certificate is required to be produced by the petitioner than the petitioner may be granted a reasonable time for producing the same and the petitioner would be obliged to produce it. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction.