IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4333 of 2009 Mahendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ram Badan Singh, Resident of Village- Bishanpur Beri, P.S. Mohaddinagar, Distt- Samastipur. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Incharge Personnel), Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, Munger. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai –cum- Chairman, Constable Selection Committee, Begusarai. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai–cum- Member Constable Selection Committee, Begusarai. 7. The Superintendent of Education, Khagaria– Cum- Member Constable Selection Committee, Begusarai. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 8.4.2009 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Ahshanuddin Amanullah, learned Standing Counsel No.17. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him to the post of Constable in the Bihar Police Force. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The respondents had issued Advertisement No.1/98, which had appeared in the local dailies, inviting applications for appointment as Constables in the Bihar Police 2 Forces. The petitioner was also an applicant, and was subjected to the selection process. He reached the final stage and his name appeared in the select-list which was subject to measurement of height and completion of other formalities. The petitioner was not issued appointment letter, as a result of which he preferred C.W.J.C. No.6279 of 2002 (Mahendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others), which was disposed of by order dated 21.5.2002 (Annexure-7), whereby he was directed to submit a representation before the appropriate authorities (respondent no.3 therein), which was to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The petitioner’s representation was rejected by respondent no.4 by order dated 7.2.2003 (Annexure-8), wherein it was stated that the petitioner was short of minimum required height. He was re-measured and he was found 182.2 c.m., whereas the last candidate had measured up to 183 c.m. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner preferred two writ petitions simultaneously, namely, C.W.J.C. No.14010 of 2004 and C.W.J.C. No.14027 of 2004, which were disposed of by a common order dated 23.8.2006 3 (Annexure-9), whereby respondent no.3/respondent no.2 were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. The order dated 23.8.2006 (Annexure-9), inter alia, stated that the petitioner’s representation filed in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2002 (Annexure-7) had remained pending. The respondent authorities were, therefore, directed to dispose of the fresh representation, in case the statement is found to be correct. The petitioner’s fresh representation has been rejected by the order dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure-10), wherein it has been reiterated that the petitioner had on re-measurement measured up to 182.2c.m.. The following observations were also made in the order: “;kfpdkdRRk~kZ egsUnz dqekj flag n~okjk lefiZr vH;kosnu dks rRdkyhu vkj{kh mi&egkfujh{kd, eqaxsj {ks=, eqaxsj n~okjk vLohd`r fd;k tk pqdk gS ftldh lwpuk ;kfpdkRrkZ dks bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 151@lh0vkj0, fnukad 7.2.03 ds ek/;e ls fucaf/kr Mkd n~okjk Hkstk tk pqdk gS@ bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd lh-MCyw0ts0lh0 la0&14010/2004 dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku ;kf;dkdRrkZ n~okjk okLrfod rF; dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k fNik;k x;k gS rFkk ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdkdRrkZ n~okjk xyr c;kuh dh xbZ gS@” 3. It is thus evident that the petitioner had obtained the order dated 23.8.2006 4 (Annexure-9) on a misrepresentation to the Court that his earlier representation had remained pending, whereas the correct position is that the same had been rejected by order dated 7.2.2003 (Annexure-8). This has been followed by the present writ petition. 4. Taking the entire conspectus of facts on the own showing of the petitioner, it is evident that he has measured less than the minimum required height. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondent authorities refusing to appoint him on the post of Constable cannot be faulted. Secondly, the petitioner obtained the order dated 23.8.2006 (Annexure-9) by making a false statement before this Court. Thirdly, he has been needlessly pursuing a stale matter. He appears to be pursuing this matter and harassing the authorities as well as this Court no end till such time he obtains the order of appointment by hook or crook, as the hackneyed expression goes. Law is well settled that discretionary writ jurisdiction is never exercised in favour of persons who are given to falsehood. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the communication 5 dated 25.7.2007 (Annexure-11), from respondent no.2 to respondent nos.4 and 5, enclosing thereto copy of the aforesaid order in C.W.J.C. No.14010 of 2004, with the request to dispose of the petitioner’s representation. The representation has already been considered and rejected by the authorities. The reliance on Annexure-11 is most redundant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on communication dated 7.9.2007 (Annexure-12), from respondent no.5 to respondent no.3, informing the latter that the petitioner had measured up to the height of 183.7 c.m.. In view of the over-arching reality spread over the records of this Court that the petitioner had measured less than 183 c.m., the statement made in Annexure-12 becomes apocryphal. Secondly, Annexures-11 and 12 appear to be redundant. In view of the disposal of the representations of the petitioner filed in pursuance of the earlier order, having already been rejected, there was no occasion for Annexures-11 and 12. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/