IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9748 of 2005 CHANDAN KUMAR CHANDAN, Son of Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of Village-Gulela Bhitta, Post Office Aurahi Gobindpur, Police Station Barhara Kothi, District Purnea. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna. 4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone patna. 5.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6.The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda Shri Niraj Sinha, Cum Chairman, Constable Selection Committee, Patna. 7.The City S.P., Patna Cum Member, Constable Selection Committee, Patna. ----------- 2 8/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the office order vide Memo No.732 dated 12.7.2005 contained as Annexure-6 to this application issued by Deputy Director General of Police, Central Zone, Patna by which the claim of appointment of the petitioner on the post of constable has been rejected and further for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus direction to the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable in Central Range, Patna District who has fulfilled all criteria for the post of constable as per advertisement and any other appropriate writ, order, direction save and except in accordance with the law.” 2 The petitioner while assailing the impugned order would reiterate the same issue which was raised by the petitioner before the authorities when liberty was given to the petitioner to approach them for ventilating of his grievance. The impugned order, in fact, has been passed only under such direction of this Court. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would really an amount of discrimination as the petitioner’s height was 178 C.M. and he has been left out, whereas, a person having the same height in the same group has been appointed. He would also invite attention of this Court towards paragraph 23 of the writ application assailing specific case of other discrimination. From the impugned order as also the two counter affidavits filed on the subject it would be clear that there was tie between the last candidate selected in the category of backward (Annexure-2) and when the height of the petitioner and the last selected candidate was found to be same i.e, 178 CM. as also the educational qualification was also the same, the date of birth had become the deciding criteria. Counsel for the State, in fact, has supported this rationale on the basis of the principles laid down in the advertisement, which while laying down such norms of selection, in case of tie in the height of the candidates, had 3 fixed the manner of screening on the basis of qualification and age. This Court would find no error in such approach because once height and the educational qualification is of two persons found to be the same, one being older in age can always be preferred because the younger one can still get a chance for employment any where else in future. In any event, there is no other prescribed method for selection of a constable and the principles adopted by the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary. So far the next issue, with regard to discrimination of other candidates, is concerned, the respondents have explained the same in their supplementary counter affidavit at length and despite service of a copy of such counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner on 20.10.2006 no reply thereof has been filed by the petitioner in the space of more than three years. That being so, this Court must proceed that whatever stand has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit, remains uncontroverted and hence can also be taken into consideration for denying the facts asserted by the petitioner. This Court, therefore, would find that there was no error in rejecting the case of the petitioner in course of 4 selection for the post of constable. This application being thus devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)