JUDGMENT : Heard Mr.Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anshu Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This writ petition has been preferred for direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner for sending on training alongwith other selected constables. Pursuant to the Advertisement No.4/2015 for appointment on the post of constable in the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has submitted on-line application for Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination, 2015. The said examination was conducted by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. The petitioner was issued Admit Card for appearing in the preliminary test as well as the main examination. The petitioner belongs to EBC-I category. The petitioner was found successful in the main examination which was based on the written examination. The petitioner got Admit Card for appearing in the physical and medical test conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. The date of her physical test and measurement was fixed on 30.11.2016 at Ranchi. The petitioner appeared in the physical as well as medical test and thereafter, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has circulated the list of those candidates who have finally been found successful in the written and medical test. The petitioner was directed to appear on 30.12.2016 for verification of the documents relating to the educational qualification as well as caste certificate. The petitioner was declared successful candidate on 15.06.2017. The petitioner was directed to join in the office of the Commandant, Jharkhand Police Force-VII at Hazaribagh along with all the relevant certificates. The petitioner was also issued appointment letter dated 13.06.2017. The petitioner submitted her joining in the office of the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Force at Hazaribagh. The entire documents were verified. The petitioner was re-measured wherein she was found 3 cm less than the required height as disclosed in the Police Manual and advertisement. By the order dated 13.06.2018, this Court directed for constitution of Medical Board comprising of Chief Medical Officer and four other Medical Officers in presence of a Judicial Officer, Ranchi Civil Court. The entire documents were verified. The petitioner was re-measured wherein she was found 3 cm less than the required height as disclosed in the Police Manual and advertisement. By the order dated 13.06.2018, this Court directed for constitution of Medical Board comprising of Chief Medical Officer and four other Medical Officers in presence of a Judicial Officer, Ranchi Civil Court. Pursuant thereto, the medical board was constituted and the Judicial Officer of Ranchi Civil Court was present and the report of the said medical board is on the record wherein it is clearly stated that pursuant to direction of the Court, the medical board was constituted and in presence of the Judicial Officer of Ranchi Civil Court the measurement of height of the petitioner was taken wherein the height of the petitioner was found to be 145 cm, whereas the requirement of the height was 148 cm. 4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical report is there and he is not disputing the said medical report. He submits that however the competent authority is having the power to relax the rule in certain circumstances. He submits that in one of the case, the direction was issued to that effect. He relied in the case of “Cosmas Bhengra with Another v. State of Jharkhand and Others”, 2005 (3) JCR 271 (Jhr). He submits that relaxation rule was considered in this case and direction was issued for appointment of one Cosmas Bhengra and the matter with regard to another person was remitted back for consideration. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the said judgment. 5. Per contra, Ms. Anshu Bansal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that pursuant to the appointment letter issued, the petitioner was re-measured and thereafter her appointment was cancelled. She submits that in the appointment letter in the clear terms it was disclosed that this is not the final appointment letter and the appointment shall subject to the conditions mentioned therein. She submits that in the appointment letter it was disclosed that if anything comes out further with regard to any eligibility criteria, the appointment shall not be made effective. She submits that in view of the Rules 672 and 663 of the Police Manual, the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered. She submits that in the appointment letter it was disclosed that if anything comes out further with regard to any eligibility criteria, the appointment shall not be made effective. She submits that in view of the Rules 672 and 663 of the Police Manual, the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered. She submits that for the ladies the height was prescribed as 148 cm in the advertisement also. She submits that in Rule 672 it clearly stipulates about the medical examination wherein the conditions and procedures have been prescribed. She submits that this writ petition may not be allowed in the fact that the petitioner was being appointed in a disciplined force and if the relaxation rule can be invoked in the case in hand, the plethora of writ petitions shall be filed before this Court for such relaxation. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties this Court has gone through the materials on record. By order dated 13.06.2018 the medical board was constituted and the said medical board in presence of a Judicial Officer of Civil Court Ranchi found the height of the petitioner as 145 cm. Admittedly, the petitioner is having 3 cm less height in terms of the advertisement as well as of the Police Manual. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that was allowed in a peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. In that case, one Cosmas Bhengra at the time of application was only three days left for 19 years of age and by way of completion of the examination he has completed 19 years of age and in that case so far Cosmas Bhengra is concerned, he has atleast by the end of the selection has completed the age and so far one Reena Kumari is concerned, in that particular case, there was dispute with regard to her Hindi reading and writing test and that is why the matter with regard to the said Reena Kumari was remanded back to the authority concerned. This is not a fit case for remanding back the matter to the authorities as the Court found force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State that a Pandora-box will be opened if for such relaxation a mandamus is issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. 9. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.