IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6223 of 2003 Dinesh Dubey, S/o Sri Niwas Dubey of Village Punao, P.O. Kharido, P.S. Balau, District Kaimur (Bhabhua). ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. S.P. Aurangabad. -------- Respondents ----------- 7 23.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to the following effect:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ, order and direction to quash the order of the S.P. (Annexure-7) and order of the (A.D.G.P.) Additional Director General of Police, Patna zone (Annexure-10) and to reinstate the petitioner from the date of termination of service and to direct the respondents to fulfill all the posts of Constable of Gaya Range and for grant of all consequential benefits including arrear salary for the period of termination.” This Court, noticing the scope of the writ application as also the argument of the parties, had passed a detailed order on 30.10.2009 relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “This is a very difficult situation for 2 the respondents. In order to justify the impugned order removing the petitioner from service only on the ground of his having not been found to have the prescribed minimum height of 179.10 cm., the height of the last candidate of the general category selected, they will have to accept that either the Board in its measurement showing the petitioner to be measuring 179.50 cms. had made elusive error for favouring the petitioner or that the Superintendent of Police despite finding the height of the petitioner on the date of his appointment to be 178.50 cms. still choose to appoint him though the minimum height of the last candidate of general category was 179.10. Mr. Singh very fairly submits that he would strick to the stand that the petitioner measures 179.50 cms. and in case his height is not found to be so the petitioner will have no claim for being appointed or being retained in service as a constable. The respondents, therefore, have to act fairly, at least must pretend to act fairly. They cannot now refuse to take measurement of the petitioner because it is their two documents, one dated 12.4.2000 (Annexure 15) bearing the signature of Ram Lakhan Prasad, the then Superintendent of Police (Rail), Prashant Singh, the then Commandant, B.M.P.II, Dehri and Vinay Kumar Pandey, the then Superintendent of Police (Administration), Darbhanga which shows the height of the petitioner as 179.50 cms., whereas the height in course of measurement in terms 3 of Rule 672 by the Medical Board at the time of appointment on 19.5.2000 under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad records the height of the petitioner as 178.50 cms. None of these documents have been created by the petitioner and therefore, if the petitioner was assessed with his height as 179.5 cms. the respondents will be duty bound to at least make the thing clear by getting the petitioner remeasured and in the event they refuse to do so they will be called upon to take action against three of the aforementioned members, all three senior officers of the Police Department, because it is they who have made deliberate misstatement recording the height of the petitioner. On the other hand, if such height of the petitioner is found to be 179.50 cms., the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad who had recorded his height as 178.50 cms. on 19.5.2000 will have to be held responsible for making misrepresentation of the height of the petitioner and consequently his removal from service.......” Today, learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.2 which has been sworn by one Mr. Jitendra Singh Gangwar, D.I.G. of Police (Personnel), wherein in paragraph no.5, the following stand has been taken. “5. That it is submitted that in compliance of the Hon’ble Court order dated 30.10.2009 the D.I.G. 4 (Personnel), Bihar, Patna vide letter no. 5797/P2 dt. 12.11.2009 has directed to the D.I.G., Magadh Range, Gaya to remeasure the petitioner and submit his report within two weeks.” In the opinion of this Court, once the Government has taken a decision for re- measurement of the height of the petitioner, his grievance automatically comes to an end, inasmuch as, now if the respondents would find that the height on which the petitioner was originally appointed (179.50 cm.) as recorded on 12.4.2000 is found to be there, they would not be only under obligation to recall the order of termination of the petitioner but would also extend all the benefits from which the petitioner stood deprived on account of an illegal order of removal from his service on a wholly non-est and non-existent ground with regard to his height. On the other hand, if the petitioner’s height is found to be lesser than 179.50 cm., he cannot be allowed to contend for retaining his appointment inasmuch as the findings recorded by the subsequent Superintendent of Police on 19.5.2000 to the effect that the 5 petitioner’s height was not correctly measured would be found to be justified thus needing no interference in the earlier order of termination of service of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is finally disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)