IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1224 of 2010 Matiullah Mian, S/O Shri Nasir Mian, R/O Vill.- Guthani, P.S.- Guthani, Distt.- Siwan ---- Petitioner ---Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Range, Chapra 6. The Superintendent of Police, District of Saran, Siwan 7. The Superintendent of Police, District of Gopalganj, --------- Respondents---- Respondents. ----------- 2. 7.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, learned Standing Counsel No.1 for the respondents. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 382 of 2004, and is aggrieved by the order dated 28.6.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of the time that has lapsed since time of recruitment has taken place. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Government of Bihar had issued an advertisement for selection/appointment of 2 constable in the Bihar Police Force. The petitioner (appellant herein) had submitted his application claiming himself to be a backward class and submitted caste-certificate accordingly. He was not selected followed by the representation which remained unattended leading to C.W.J.C. No. 8703 of 2001. The same was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 17.7.2001, whereby the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran at Chapra, was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation. It appears that the representation was rejected, leading to the present writ petition which has been dismissed on the ground that the selection process had taken place way back in 1998. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere in with respect to such a stale claim. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been mis-apprehension in the headquarter about his caste-certificate. He also submits that persons below his height were selected. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the appellant had submitted his application for consideration as a candidate of backward 3 category, and the caste-certificate so certified. He changed his stand at a later stage, and submitted caste-certificate claiming consideration as a candidate of most-backward category. The selection process had by then made headway, and the appellant was considered as a candidate of the backward category. This aspect of the matter covers the second aspect of the matter also, i.e. the grievance with respect to height. In view of the appellant’s application he was considered as a candidate of the backward category. Paragraph 12 of the writ petition stated the height of the selected candidates. Paragraph 12 of the writ petition reds as follows: “12. That however the petitioner was surprised that several candidates whose heights were below that of the petitioner were selected both in the Ist as well as in the 2nd list. These candidates belonged to general category as well as of the backward and the most backward. The name of some of the candidates who were selected and appointed in the Ist list whose heights were below that of the petitioner are given below: (i) Jahangir Ansari - 176 Cm- Saran (ii) Balindra Prasad- 176.5Cm- Saran (iii) Samsuddin Ansari- 176 Cm- Saran (iv) Santosh Kumar- 175.5 Cm-Gopalganj (v) Md. Safari Iman 175.5 Cm- Gopalganj Similarly, some of the candidates selected in 2nd list below the petitioner’s height are as follows: (i) Vijoy Goswami Roll no. 11318 4 General Category - 175.5 Cm- Gopalganj . (ii) Vijay Kumar Gupta Roll No.9944 Backward Class - 175 Cm. (iii) Awadhesh Kumar Roll No.6478 - 175 Cm.” The respondent authorities replied this issue in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit in the writ proceedings and stated as follows: “11. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition, it is stated that height of last selected candidate under the list of backward class, candidate (Annexure-II) is 179.4 c.m. in the IIIrd list. Height of the petitioner is 175.3 C.m. which much lesser than last selected candidate.” It is thus evident on a perusal of the statement in the writ petition, and it is rebuttal in the counter affidavit, that the last candidate from the category of backward candidates had measured up-to 179.4cm, whereas the appellant had measured up-to 175.3 cm. No fault can be found on this score also. 5. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J.)