IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6611 of 2006 CHANDESHWARI PASWAN SON OF GANPATI PASWAN OF VILLAGE PARSANNI, P.O. BARAIL, DISTRICT SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE D.G. OF POLICE, BIAHR, PATNA. 3. THE I.G. OF POLICE, B.M.P. PATNA. 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, B.M.P. SOUTHERN ZONE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE COMMANDANT, B.M.P. 7, KATIHAR. 6. THE THEN S.P. KATIHAR SRI A.K. JAIN CUM CHAIRMAN CONSTABLE SELECTION BOARD -3, KATIHAR. 7. THE COMMANDANT, B.M.P. 21/12, SAHARSA. ----------- 2 10/11/2010 No clear case has been made out by the petitioner for giving a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on the basis of annexure-2 because annexure-2 is not a letter of appointment but an invitation to the petitioner to report to the concerned authority for verification of his records and other details before appointment. Subsequently petitioner has not been appointed because he was found short by 0.5 cm. Contention of the learned counsel is that exemption ought to have been given to the petitioner because of variation in the height or atleast re- measurement ought to have been done to finally certify - 2 - that the petitioner fulfills the criteria. His application before the authority has not begotten any response. Learned counsel for the State is correct that the application of the petitioner does not carry any date or any evidence that such a representation has been filed. Even at this stage the petitioner can make out a case. Let him do so by filing a fresh representation for condonation of his height or re-measurement as the case may be and the respondents would now be obliged to communicate their decision on the issue which ought to be done within a period of three months from the date of filing of such a representation. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)