IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.627 of 2008 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The D.I.G., Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga 4. The D.I.G. Manvadhikar, Bihar, Patna 5. The S.P. Darbhanga, 6. The S.P. Gaya 7. The S.P. Bhojpur at Arrah …….Respondents/Appellants Versus Badsah Chauhan son of Sri Badri Chauhan, resident of village P.O. Baruna, P.S. Buxar, District – Buxar ……….. Petitioner/Respondent. ----------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, Advocate. ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 21st November, 2008. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal for which I.A. No. 4876 of 2008 has been made, in our considered view, appeal has no merit and it does not deserved to be admitted. 2. That the respondent herein (original writ petitioner) applied for the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement no. 1/98, is not in dispute. That he has a height of 174.5 cm is also an admitted position. It is, thus, not in dispute that respondent fulfils the minimum stipulated height as per the advertisement. He was found to meet all - 2 - other requisite eligibilities as well and, accordingly, selected by the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga and, pursuant thereto he joined as Constable on 5th July, 1999. After a lapse of two years, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on diverse aspects of misconduct but principally on the ground that candidates having more height than the petitioner could not be appointed due to illegality in the selection procedure and overwriting in the master chart. Upon conclusion of inquiry, charges were held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer. The Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga accepted the report and passed an order on 25th November, 2001 dismissing him from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the respondent came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, he filed a writ petition before this court which has been allowed by the Single Judge by his order dated 22nd February, 2008. 3. The government counsel did not make any submission with regard to any misrepresentation, fraud or forgery committed by the respondent in his appointment as constable. As a matter of fact, he did not show us anything which could reflect any illegality in the selection process. The government counsel did not dispute that the respondent met the minimum stipulated height. It is pertinent to notice that if any deliberate wrong was done in the selection process in selecting the respondent, the action ought to have been taken against such officer but that was not done. - 3 - 4. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge is proper justifying no interference in appeal. 5. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. This disposes of application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 4876 of 2008) as well. 6. Since appeal has been dismissed in limine, application for interim relief (I.A. No. 4877 of 2008) does not survive and it is dismissed accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/