IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.348 of 2010 Praveen Pal, S/O Sri Radhey Shyam Pal, R/O Village- Baheri, P.S. Karamchat (Sabor), District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ---- Appellant (Petitioner). Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Dept. of Home (Police) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police North Zone, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Chairman, Bihar Military Police, North Division, Board-2, cum Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari --Respondents (Respondents). ---------- 6. 19.4.2010 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma for the appellant, and Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna, has been filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) of C.W.J.C. No. 15475 of 2006, which was dismissed. The appellant raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 30.10.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15475 of 2006 (Praveen Pal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The appellant 2 has sought a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him as a constable in B.M.P. 22, Jamui. It appears that the State Government issued an advertisement some time in the year 2004, for recruitment of constables in the Bihar Police Force. The appellant was an applicant, was subjected to the physical test on 1.11.2006, and had measured 164.2 cm in height. His request for re-measurement was not acceded for the reason that the same was submitted beyond the time prescribed for the purpose, and also for the reason that it was submitted to an inappropriate authority. The writ petition was on these grounds dismissed leading to the present appeal. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that, in order to do complete justice to the parties, a Division Bench of this Court had ensured re-measurement of the appellant in the court room itself at the hands of the functionaries of the State Government mentioned in the order. The result of remeasurement was that the appellant on this occasion measured up-to 165.5 cm in height. 3 The relevant portion of the order dated 25.3.2010, is reproduced hereinbelow: “We grant two weeks time to learned counsel for the State to find out as to what would be the appellant‟s position in the final selection list on the basis of his height being 165.5 cm. and whether any candidate having lesser height than 165.5 cm. from the category of the appellant has been selected as a Constable in the same transaction or not. The matter should be listed as first case subject to part heard for admission on 12.4.2010.” In obedience of this Court order, respondent no.5 has placed on record his counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows: “17. That the petitioner secured 5 points in the physical test. He belongs to the Backward Caste Annexure-1 category. The petitioner has annexed N.C.C. „B‟ certificate along with his application form. If the N.C.C. certificate is found to be correct after verification then the petitioner gets 5 additional points for N.C.C. „B‟ certificate. Thereafter the petitioner‟s aggregate points of physical text and N.C.C. „B‟ certificate becomes 10(ten) points. The last candidate in B.C.I. category in the waiting list after the merit list has secured 9 (nine) points. But since the petitioner has also failed in chest expansion measurement, so he can not be accommodated in the merit list. Therefore the petitioner does not find place in the aforesaid merit list.” It is thus evident that even if, the 4 appellant, after re-measurement, was found to be of greater height than last person selected for appointment, he is rendered disqualified on the ground of deficiency of chest expansion measurement. A photo copy of the chart showing comparative measurement of various candidates is marked Annexure A and B to the counter affidavit of respondent no.5 in the present appeal. It is thus obvious that, even though the appellant has crossed the hurdle of measurement in height, he fails on the ground of deficiency of chest expansion measurement. It was obviously for this reason that the appellant did not raise this question before the learned Single Judge. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter. It is accordingly rejected. There shall be order as to costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)