JUDGEMNT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Cook (Rasoiya), as she falls under the zone of consideration and the person having lesser height than her has been selected, however, she has arbitrarily been denied the appointment. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to show cause as to why the petitioner has not been selected for the said post despite having qualified in the physical test as well as the written examination. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to grant appointment to her as she has qualified the physical test as well as the written examination and despite the seats lying vacant, the appointment has not been made. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to publish the result of the practical examination of the candidates as well as category wise cut off marks. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Advertisement No. 01/2018 was published by the Office of the Commandant of Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro for recruitment on the post of Daftari, Cook, Water Carrier, Sweeper, Barber and Washerman in Group-D posts in Jharkhand Armed Police, Indian Reserve Battalion and State Industrial Security Force. The petitioner applied for the post of Cook pursuant to the said advertisement and was issued admit card having Roll No. 4463 to appear in physical test as well as written examination. Thereafter, she appeared in physical test as well as written examination and was declared qualified in both the test and examination held in the month of February, 2019. Subsequently, she appeared in the practical examination held in the month of July, 2019 in which she performed quite well, however, her name did not find place in the final merit list. 4. It is further submitted that one Tirsila Luggun bearing Roll No. 6755, having height of 145-145.5 cm has been appointed as Cook in IRB-9, however, the petitioner having height of 154 cm has been denied appointment. 4. It is further submitted that one Tirsila Luggun bearing Roll No. 6755, having height of 145-145.5 cm has been appointed as Cook in IRB-9, however, the petitioner having height of 154 cm has been denied appointment. The petitioner also represented the respondent authorities against the said discrimination, however, the same remained unresponded, which has compelled her to prefer the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that Advertisement No. 01/2018 was published by the Commandant, JAP-4, Bokaro for appointment on the post of Daftari, Cook, Water Carrier, Sweeper, Barber and washerman. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Cook and she was allotted Roll No. 4463. She appeared in the physical as well as written test and having qualified in the same, she was allowed to appear in the practical test held in the month of July, 2019. 6. It is further submitted that as per the said advertisement, physical test and written examination were qualifying in nature. In terms with Clause-10(viii) of the advertisement, the merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the practical test which was of 100 marks out of which the petitioner secured 59 marks, whereas the last selected candidate appointed on the post of Cook obtained 69 marks. Hence, she did not come in the zone of consideration. 7. It is also submitted that as per the advertisement, a female candidate was required to have minimum height of 148 cm. The candidate against whom the petitioner has alleged having lesser height was in fact having height of 148 cm as per the Master Chart and the physical verification of the candidates and she was finally appointed on the post of Cook. 8. It is further submitted that pursuant to the representation preferred by the petitioner in this regard, the Inspector General, JAP, Ranchi vide memo no. 442 dated 05.10.2019 directed the Chairman, Selection Board to make an enquiry on the said point raised by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, a Board was constituted for measuring the height of the candidate – Tirsila Luggun bearing Roll No. 6755, who was appointed as Cook in IRB-9. 442 dated 05.10.2019 directed the Chairman, Selection Board to make an enquiry on the said point raised by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, a Board was constituted for measuring the height of the candidate – Tirsila Luggun bearing Roll No. 6755, who was appointed as Cook in IRB-9. The Enquiry Board measured her height on 04.01.2020 and during the said physical verification, her height was found 148 cm, which was conforming to the requirement of the advertisement. The said fact was communicated to the Inspector General, JAP, Ranchi vide memo no. 01 dated 04.01.2020. 9. It is lastly submitted that since height of the candidate was only qualifying in nature, no marks was awarded for the same. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the petitioner, who applied for the post of Cook pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2018, obtained 59 marks in practical test, whereas the last selected candidate for the post of Cook got 69 marks. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner was not found under the zone of consideration. So far as the petitioner’s allegation that the candidate – Tirsila Luggun, who was appointed as Cook, was not having the required height of 148 cm, the said allegation has been found incorrect as pursuant to the petitioner’s representation and on direction of the Inspector General, JAP, Ranchi, a specially constituted Board again measured the height of Tirsila Luggun and found the same to be 148 cm. Hence, she qualified the requirement of the said post as per the advertisement in question. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for consideration of her prayer made in the present writ petition and the same being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.