IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15434 of 2005 Raj Kumar Thakur, son of Sri Ram Sakal Thakur, resident of village + P.O. Shaligrami, P S – Sheobpur Kamal, District – Begusarai __________________ Petitioner Versus 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, Manwadhikar, Bihar, Patna. 5. The S P, Darbhanga. 6. The S P, Madhubani. _________________ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate, Meeta Sinha and K N Sahay. For the State: Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to AAG – 1. ------ 04. 14.10.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Annexure-4 which is the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ application. The impugned order is dated 25.11.2001. Petitioner is seeking parity in terms of a decision of this Court in light of yet another decision which has been rendered in identical circumstance by a Bench, which was the case of Dilip Kumar Mandal decided on 10.5.2011, arising out of CWJC No. 6830 of 2008. This order has been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the supplementary rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The common background under which the impugned order came to be passed is that the petitioner came to be selected and appointed on the post of a constable on the basis of what is 2 known as Advertisement No.1 of 1998. After due selection petitioner underwent training and worked for about 2 ½ years when a departmental proceeding was drawn up and an order of dismissal came to be passed in the background that certain persons having more height than the petitioner were not appointed and they acquired a rightful claim for such appointment. Since those persons have to be accommodated, there was not much option but to oust the petitioner to make way for so-called taller candidates who should have been appointed in the first case. This aspect was considered in at least two other cases. One is the case of Dilip Kumar Mandal (Annexure-13) and yet another case was one relating to one Badshah Chauhan, which arose out of CWCJ No.4868 of 2002. In similar circumstance learned single Judge quashed the order of termination which was upheld not only by the Division Bench of this Court but even by the Hon`ble Apex Court. Taking cue from such a decision and not accepting the stand of the State that the appointment of the petitioner was conditional, since identical orders of termination passed in the case of Dilip Kumar Mandal as well as Badshah Chauhan were set aside and writs allowed on the ground of equity since they had already worked for 2 ½ years and with no fault being attributable to them. Selection is in the hands of the respondents. 3 Eligibility of the petitioner was not an issue. So far as height is concerned, petitioner did have the requisite height which was required. Taking cue from the rationale and reasoning given in the case of Badshah Chauhan as well as Dilip Kumar Mandal there is no option but in the interest of justice and consistency of decisions, the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 is required to be quashed and is being quashed. Writ is allowed with a direction upon the respondents that petitioner would be entitled to now re-join and continue in service. The Court, however, has reservation in allowing the benefit of payment of salary to the petitioner for the period he was removed till the period he will be reinstated. However, the benefit in terms of seniority and for the purpose of continuity in service etc. will accrue in favour of the petitioner. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)