JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gosharve for the State. 2. The appellant had applied for being appointed as a Constable in the Bihar Military Police against Advertisement No.1 of 1995 but on ground of not having the requisite height, he was not selected. 3. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court vide CWJC No. 8976 of 2000 and submitted that he had the requisite height of 177 centimeters but, was wrongly excluded from consideration on that ground alone. He further submitted that several of the respondents in the writ petition who had lesser height than the appellant were selected. 4. It appears from the records that in CWJC No. 2354 of 1998 (Guddu Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), on a similar complaint, the matter was refereed to the Additional Director General of Police, BMP to examine such cases where there was an allegation of wrong measurement for exclusion as also for inclusion of others. 5. A detailed report was given by the Additional Director General of Police, BMP stating that the appellant and fifteen others, similarly situated, did not qualify and that no person in the category of the appellant with lesser height was selected as a sepoy in the BMP. Only one instance was found of one Mahendra Narayan Choudhary, who had lesser height than the petitioner or the requisite height for being selected who had been selected. 6. The aforesaid candidate has been put to departmental proceeding for such folly. 7. Some others were appointed on the post of Home Guard and not as Constable in BMP with whom the appellant could not seek parity. 8. It was lastly urged by the appellant before the Writ Court that if he did not qualify for being considered for the post of Constable because of his height, like others, he should have been chosen for Home Guard or any other sports persons or trade man sepoys, which required height of only 170 centimeters. 9. However, the learned Single Judge, on finding that the appointment process had already been closed against an advertisement which was taken out in the year 1995 and that there are disputed questions of facts from each side which cannot be decided in the writ petition, non-suited the appellant. 10. 9. However, the learned Single Judge, on finding that the appointment process had already been closed against an advertisement which was taken out in the year 1995 and that there are disputed questions of facts from each side which cannot be decided in the writ petition, non-suited the appellant. 10. We too find that the process of selection is over and that nobody in the category of the appellant having lesser height than the requisite height or the height of the appellant has been selected as Constable. 11. Thus, we do not intend to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. The appeal is thus dismissed.