IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1748 of 2004 BRIJ KISHORE RAM SON OF SRI JAGMOHAN RAM RESIDENT OF VILAGE AND P.O. BELAUR, P.S. GUTHANI, DISTRICT SIWAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MUNGER RANGE, MUNGER. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNGER. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHEIKHPURA. ----------- 4 02/07/2010 Petitioner was appointed on the post of constable on the basis of advertisement No. 1 of 1998. Petitioner’s recruitment relates to the recruitment carried out in the district of Munger and belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste. The minimum eligibility for such appointment in terms of height is 160 cms. It is the case of the petitioner that he qualified in all the physical parameters and the Selection Board recommended his name for appointment. According to the petitioner, height of the petitioner recorded on measurement was 176.5 cms. The Selection Board, however, in its recommendation contained in Annexure-3 indicated that the concerned district will also ensure that the height of the - 2 - candidates are re-measured and satisfaction on this count obtained before appointment. According to the petitioner in this measurement also reflected his height to be 176.5 cms. He was appointed but the issue did not rest at that because allegations started flowing fast and thick that there were certain candidates who made it to the list of appointees, if not appointed, not having the requisite minimum height for their category. Some of those candidates have been identified. Petitioner was one of them. The authorities decided to verify the position and moved appropriately in the matter. Petitioner was subjected to re-measurement of his height by the Superintendent of Police, Munger. That measurement revealed that the actual height of the petitioner was 175.5 cms. In other words, his height was short atleast by one cm. vis-à-vis the last candidate who made it to the list in the Scheduled Caste category. Authorities, therefore, were convinced that the petitioner’s height reflected in the measurement book at the time of recruitment did not reflect actual state of affairs and obviously, the petitioner had been favoured by whoever it is, in getting him appointed by showing a height more than what he actually was. - 3 - Since the petitioner had already been appointed, the authorities were advised to conduct a departmental enquiry against him. There is yet another twist in the tale in the sense that the Enquiry Officer initially appointed did not find fault against the petitioner and he tried to put the blame on the I.P.S. Officers for creating such a situation and controversy about the height. The superior authority found the conduct of the Enquiry Officer to be a miss and a new Enquiry Officer came to be appointed. The findings are there and the recommendation of the disciplinary authority based on the finding is termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if two measurements had indicated his height to be 176.5 cms. then the measurement done by the Superintendent of Police, Munger could not be taken to be the touch stone for removing the petitioner. There can be an element of error in the measurement carried out by the Superintendent of Police and the benefit of doubt must accrue to the petitioner. He also submits that a variation of one cm. can be for many a reasons and a permanently appointed employee should not be sacrificed at the alter of an enquiry on the question of height. - 4 - If there is a variation of more than one cm. in height from the master chart vis-à-vis actual verification, then only the candidate can be removed as would be evident from Annexure-19. The petitioner has also raised question mark over the way the enquiry has been conducted and the conclusion reached. Stand of the respondent State in the counter affidavit is that the respondent authorities did receive complaint against certain Officers involved in the process of recruitment and physical verification. Complaint had been received by the authorities on this score and it had even created unruly situation because otherwise ineligible candidates were favoured and obliged for many a reasons. According to them, entry in the master chart did not reflect the actual state of affairs and it was in this background that the police headquarters ordered enquiry in every district including the district of Munger with which we are concerned in the present writ application. The District Superintendent of Police himself carried out the measurement and he did find variation of one cm. in height of the petitioner vis-à-vis the entry made in the master chart. If the height of the petitioner - 5 - did not match with the original entries indicated then there was material or ground which supported the allegations of helping certain candidates enroll even though they did not have the requisite height vis-à-vis the last candidate who got selected or enrolled. Accepted position is that the last person who got enrolment under the Scheduled Caste category was 176.5 cms. and that is why the petitioner probably got accommodated or got obliged by the people at the helms of affairs during the course of recruitment by showing his to be 176.5 cms. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two measurements were in his favour which should clinch the issue. It is difficult to accept the submission because it was the entries of the height which was the real cause of all disputes and it led to re-measurement by the Superintendent of Police, Munger. The object of such re- measurement was only to verify whether the records and the actual height of the petitioner matched. If the discrepancy was found, then obviously the allegations were not mere rumours but something more than that. In absence of any question mark having been raised on the measurement carried - 6 - out by the Superintendent of Police, Munger, this Court cannot raise any doubt on the authenticity of such a measurement and the subsequent decision taken thereafter in the inquiry which supported such a finding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has offered himself for re-measurement even at this stage. This is the last bait offered by the petitioner which this Court is not willing to bite because the Court does not have to keep getting the facts verified and re-verified. The issue is the decision and the action taken against the petitioner and whether the same can be upheld on judicial touch stone or not. I think enough time and energy has been wasted on the issue of measurement of height and the re-verification. The entries were found to be wrongly made reflecting the actual state of affair. If that is so, then obviously the petitioner cannot be allowed to get into list of appointees at the cost of others or vis-à-vis others who could not make it because of lack of adequate height. An unfair advantage drawn will have to be corrected, may be, by a subsequent action which has been taken in the present case. The Court is not inclined or enthusiased to either - 7 - interfere with the order or to order a re-measurement now. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)