ORDER Petitioner is permitted to add Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Siwan as party-respondent. 2. The petitioner was selected for appointment as constable in Siwan by the Central Selection Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). After selection, he was sent to Siwan district for joining but the Superintendent of Police, Siwan alleged that petitioner was 164.1cm in height. Accordingly, he was sent back. The petitioner and one another, i.e, Santosh Kumar was sent to the Board and refused to accept their joining. It is at this stage that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that once the Board had duly found him fit and selected him, the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to challenge the findings and refuse to accept the joining. If facts were only thus petitioner was correct. The Superintendent of Police cannot sit over appeal over the decision of the Board. But, what happened thereafter appears from the counter affidavit of the Board. The Board then constituted another Board which re-examined both the persons, i.e., the petitioner and Santosh Kumar. Upon re-examination by the newly constituted Selection Board, the height of the petitioner was found to be 164.5 cm whereas the height of the Santosh Kumar was found to be 164.2 cm. Thus accordingly, their height being less than 165 cm they were now declared unfit and their selection was cancelled. This is evident from Annexure-N to the counter affidavit of the Board. 3. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that how the height of a person varies. First they are both found to be 165 cm. Then, the Superintendent of Police, Siwan finds it to be 164.10 cm. Again, the Board finds it to be 164.7 cm in case of petitioner; it is 164.2 cm in case of Santosh Kumar. He submits that the height cannot vary in this manner depending upon the attitude of the person involved. 4. Before proceeding, I would like to notice one thing that recruitment is a serious business. It affects the life of a person. The facts would show that the Board itself changes its measurement. If we take the second measurement to be correct then the first measurement was faulty. 4. Before proceeding, I would like to notice one thing that recruitment is a serious business. It affects the life of a person. The facts would show that the Board itself changes its measurement. If we take the second measurement to be correct then the first measurement was faulty. The Court would like to note that what action the Board has sought to take against the members who constituted the first Board because surely something was wrong if the second measurement is to be taken to be correct. In a short span of time the height of a person cannot change from 165 cm to 164.7 or 164.2 cm. If the Board says that there may be difference in the manner in which measurement is made then it is all the worst because that shows that the Board has no standard of measurement. The people who are handling this are neither expert nor reliable. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Md. Masaud Alam Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in AIR 2012 SC 1873 , i.e. also a case similar in nature going from this Court. There also the petitioner was selected. Later on, his height was disputed. He came to this Court and the learned Single Judge who dealt with the writ petition referred the matter to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer for re-determination of the height in a scientific manner. Upon the report being submitted, the petitioner qualified. The writ petition was accordingly on basis of the report of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer allowed. State appealed. In the Intra-Court appeal, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge ought not to have referred the matter for fresh determination and the method adopted by the learned Single Judge was not approved. They thus dismissed the writ petition which took the writ petitioner to the Apex Court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge noticing the entire controversy. The Apex Court in no uncertain term approved the steps taken by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in view of the varying stand it is necessary to get an expert view. 6. The Apex Court in no uncertain term approved the steps taken by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in view of the varying stand it is necessary to get an expert view. 6. I, accordingly, direct the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Siwan to scientifically and properly examine the height of the petitioner. If the height of the petitioner as found by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Siwan is 165 cm or above, the letter of the Central Selection Board terminating the selection of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-N, being Memo No.519 dated 08.11.2011would automatically stand cancelled and Superintendent of Police, Siwan would be obliged to accept the joining of the petitioner. In case, he finds that the height is less than 165 cm then there would be no interference in the matter and the selection of the petitioner would be deemed to have been rightly cancelled. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Siwan is directed to proceed accordingly in the matter and communicate his findings to the Superintendent of Police, Siwan within one week from the date of production of a copy of this order before him by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.