IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12520 of 2002 SHANKARJI YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 19.3.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and also learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under advertisement no. 1 of 1998. The controversy relates to his height and the measurement recorded vis-à-vis that claimed by him, when it is urged that persons with lesser height to him have been appointed. Clause-18 of the advertisement stipulated that a candidate having objection with regard to his height must submit his written objection within three days of the event. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the petitioner did not file any such objection within such time. A Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12842 of 2000 and analogous cases on 12.12.2000 noticing the large number of writ applications coming to this Court against the said advertisement issued general directions to the Director General of Police to publish notice as a matter of uniform policy inviting objections specifying the time limit for the same and 2 dispose it off within a time period. In pursuance of the same, a paper publication was made on 4.2.2001 in the Hindi Daily “Hindustan” inviting written objections within fifteen days, whereafter no objection shall be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner again fairly acknowledges that the petitioner never filed any representation in response to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, relied upon certain orders of this Court where in similar circumstances in the year 2002 orders have been given for re-measuremnt of height under the very same advertisement, inter alia, on payment of costs. These orders are appended as Annexure-5 to the rejoinder of the counter affidavit filed today. In none of the orders relied upon by the petitioner, the issues discussed above with regard to Clause-18 of the advertisement and the paper publication dated 4.2.2001 have come up for consideration. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)