IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11780 of 2007 MD.FIROZ AHMAD S/O ZUBAIR ALAM, R/O VILL- BANSITIKAR PO- JICHO, PS-SABOUR, DISTT- BHAGALAPUR--------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT., OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G.-CUM-I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE A.I.G. OF POLICE (PERSONNEL) BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE EASTERN RANGE, BHAGALPUR 5. THE THEN S.P. BANKA-CUM-CHAIRMAN, CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR 6. THE THEN S.P. NAUGACHIA-CUM- MEMBER, CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR 7. THE THEN S.P. BHAGALPUR-CUM-MEMBER, CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE, BHAGALPUR-----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary & Mr. Manoj Kumar, Jha, Advocates For the State: Mr. Suresh Kumar AC to SC-VII. ---------- 4 16.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Litigation has dragged on for many a years not only by this petitioner but by many a petitioners who had approached this Court on the issue of appointment on the post of constable by virtue of an advertisement issued in the year 1998 which is known as Advertisement No. 1 of 98. The Court need not go into other details because the petitioner is back by way of the present writ application challenging annexure-8 dated 12th July, 2007 since he was given indulgence to approach the respondent authority with his grievance in terms of the order passed by the High Court contained in annexure-6. It has emerged from the speaking order which is impugned that there was some illegality with regard to measurement of the height of the petitioner initially because the master chart showed his height as 170 c. m. but on re-measurement his height was found as 180 c. m. This aspect cannot be disputed that all was not well at the - 2 - time of recruitment and that is the reason why large number of writ applications came to be filed before this Court. But the position is that in the case of petitioner it has been categorically stated that though his height was found to be 180 c. m. but the appointment of last man in his category went to a person elder in age with his date of birth being 1st February, 1971 whereas the petitioner was born in 1973. Since preference has to be given to age besides the height, therefore the petitioner even otherwise at this stage does not have a right to claim appointment. Similar reason was also given to Md. Rizwan Ansari and Md. Wasad Raja. If the facts indicated in the speaking order are correct which has not been seriously disputed then there is no occasion now to direct this petitioner to be appointed on the post of constable, more so after more than a decade when the advertisement was issued for recruitment and the recruitment process has already been completed. Another submission made is that there are still vacancies available and if a direction is passed by this Court he can be appointed and accommodated. On this the Court can only observe that an appointment process cannot be allowed to go on for years together and from one generation to other. There has to be some reasonable time frame with regard to initiation of appointment process and its conclusion This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)