JUDGEMENT Dipak Misra and Ravi Ranjan JJ. 1. The writ petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. 4333 of 2009, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The writ petitioner-appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 4333 of 2009 for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 1433 dated 2nd of April, 2008 (Annexure- 10 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police(Incharge Personnel), Bihar, Patna, whereby the request of the petitioner for re- measurement of his height had been rejected. In addition thereof, the petitioner also sought a relief that as per the recent measurement of his height done by the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, the concerned authorities may be directed to issue letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner on the post of Constable. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual matrix necessary for consideration of this case is as under: An advertisement was made in the year 1998 for selection of Constable in the State of Bihar. The petitioner duly applied for the said appointment. In February/March, 1999 he was cleared in physical and other tests. However, he could not be appointed for the reason that he was short of 183 cms. in height which was fixed as a necessary criterion for such appointment. However, the petitioner claimed that his height was 184 cms. but still he was not appointed. Several aggrieved persons approached this Court by filing writ applications in the year 2000 which was disposed of by a common order dated 12.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition directing the concerned authority to take a final decision with regard to the representations of the petitioners on its own merit. It was also observed in the aforesaid order that care must be taken, if there had been any discrimination with the persons having appropriate qualification and height and in that case justice be given to them. It has been claimed by the petitioner that despite that order passed by this Court and his representation filed before the concerned authority, no re-measurement was done in his case. However, it has been alleged by the petitioner that one candidate having height of even 182.5 cms. had been appointed. It has been claimed by the petitioner that despite that order passed by this Court and his representation filed before the concerned authority, no re-measurement was done in his case. However, it has been alleged by the petitioner that one candidate having height of even 182.5 cms. had been appointed. The writ petitioner in the above circumstances, again approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6279 of 2002, which was again disposed of vide order dated 21.5.2002, directing the concerned respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within specified time. However, this Court made it clear that it had not formed any opinion regarding the merit of the case. Such representation of the petitioner, was disposed of by order dated 7.2.2003 as contained in A nnexure-8 to the writ petition stating therein that in re -measurement he was found to be 182.8 cms. of height whereas the cut of mark was 183 cms. However, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14010 of 2004, wherein the petitioner claimed that his representation made before the authority had not been disposed of. The aforesaid writ petition was again disposed of by order dated 23.8.2006 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, directing the concerned authorities to dispose of representation filed by the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, Munger, again rejected the representation of the petitioner. However, it is claimed by the petitioner that vide Annexure-12, the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, had written to the Inspector General (Personnel), Bihar, Patna, that presently the petitioner had been found to be of 183.7 cms. height. In that view of the matter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition upon noticing that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court as in the earlier writ petition the petitioner has obtained the order dated 23.8.2006 on a misrepresentation to the court that his earlier representation had remained pending, whereas the correct position is that the same had been rejected by order dated 7.2.2003, contained in Annexure-8. In the order contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, considering the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 234.8.2006 passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-9 and while rejecting the same, the concerned authority had found that the petitioner had suppressed such fact before this Court. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the records of the case. Though no counter affidavit had been filed in the writ petition, however, the same has been filed in the present Letters Patent Appeal on behalf of the State. 6. It had been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant that he had never been re-measured by the authorities. Upon re-measurement, his height was found to be as 183.7 cms. and since there is no likelihood of his being engaged with any other concern at this point of time, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered his right upon the presently measured height and should have directed the authorities to issue appointment letter in his favour. It was also contended that prior to the letters as contained in A nnexures-11 and 12 to the writ petition, any measurement done was nullity in the eye of law. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that it has well been observed in the order of the learned Single Judge that apart from making false statement for obtaining the order dated 23.8.2006 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), the petitioner had been in the habit of pursuing this matter time and again as he wanted to obtain the order of appointment any how. It had also been submitted that it would be evident from the record that the petitioner had measured less than the minimum required height. 8. We find force in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents-State. The law is well settled that the discretionary power of the Court under writ jurisdiction is never exercised in favour of a person who has not come with clean hands. It would be manifest from Annexure-9 which is an order issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, Munger, that the petitioner was re-measured and upon such re- measurement also his height was found to be 182.2 cms and since the minimum requirement of height was 183 cms., his appointed at the post of Constable could not find favour of the authorities concerned. The whole exercise of the appointment was of the year 2000-2002 and he had been re-measured at that point of time itself. The concerned Deputy General of Police has also observed that the factum of re-measurement of his height as well as disposal of his representation had been suppressed by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14010 of 2004 and, thus, he had been able to obtain the order dated 23.8.2006. Thus, it is writ large that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands. 9. Apart from above, the petitioner had heavily relied upon the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, contained in Annexure12 to show that his height had been re-measured by the concerned Superintendent of Police and he has been found to be of 183.7 cms. However, since the competent authority had already re-measured the petitioner way back and a final decision pursuant to the direction of this Court vide Annexure-9 dated 23.8.2006 had already been taken vide Annexure-10 on 18.10.2006 by the competent authority, the re-measurement again at a later stage by a Superintendent of Police cannot be taken into account specially in view of the order dated 1.4.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police as contained in Annexure12 to the present Appeal, wherein it has clearly been stated by him that for the purpose of re-measurement, the Superintendent of Police is not a competent authority and, rather the competent authority is only the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who had already done the re- measurement of the petitioner in the year 2001. Thus, in that view of the matter, the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, stating the height of the petitioner to be of 183.7 cms. on re-measurement in 2007 becomes redundant. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this intra court appeal. 11. As a result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. I agree