IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6830 of 2008 DILIP KUMAR MANDAL, SON OF MANORI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. RATANSAGAR, VIA NIRMALI, PS NIRMALI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ---- 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. MUNAWADIHAKAR, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE S.P. DARBHANGA. 6. THE S.P. MADHUBANI. ----- RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Meeta Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to A.A.G. 1 ----------- 2 10.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal contained in Annexure-4 by which he has been dismissed from service on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally appointed as a Constable as he does not fulfill the conditions of advertisement no. 1/98. The petitioner applied for the post of Constable against advertisement no. 1/98. The petitioner was selected and worked for 2½ years after which a notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had been illegally appointed as he had a height of 175.5 c.m., 2 whereas persons who were taller than him had not been selected. A departmental proceeding was initiated and order passed dismissing the petitioner from service after he had worked for 2½ years. Apart from the petitioner, there were others who were also dismissed from service on the same grounds. The order of dismissal has been challenged in this Court by one Badshah Chauhan by filing CWJC No. 4868 of 2002. This Court held that if the minimum height required was 165 c.m. and the petitioner had a height of 175.5 c.m., it could not be said that his appointment was illegally made. There is no allegation anywhere that the petitioner had in any manner suppressed any material or had made any misrepresentation or that even after measurement his height was found less than what had been recorded at the time of the physical verification of the petitioner. After 2½ years a person comes forward to say that he is .2 c.m. taller than the petitioner would not be a ground for dismissing the petitioner. This Court in similar facts quashed the order of dismissal and allowed the writ petition to be 3 reinstated in service. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, an L.P.A. was preferred by the State of Bihar vide L.P.A. No. 627 of 2008. The L.P.A. was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 21.11.2008. Against the order of the Division Bench, the State filed a S.L.P. which was also dismissed on 8.7.2010. Counsel for the State refers to Annexure-K to the counter affidavit which is a S.L.P. filed against the order passed in CWJC No. 6090 of 2002. The order of the Apex Court indicates that the persons who were selected on the post of Constables had minimum height of 171.5 c.m. and as such, the petitioner’s claim that he ought to have been considered for selection to the post of a Constable on the ground that he possessed the minimum height of 168 cm. as specified in the advertisement was rejected by the Supreme Court. The case aforesaid is different on facts to the present case inasmuch, it may be noted that during the selection process the minimum height of the candidates selected was 171.5 cm., thus the Supreme Court held that merely because the 4 candidate possesses the minimum height, he cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. In the present case the petitioner was selected and had worked, it would be wrong to dismiss him as someone who is taller claims that he ought to have selected. I, therefore, find that the case referred to by the counsel for the State is not relevant in the facts of the present case. I, thus, set aside Annexure-4 dated 25.11.2001 and direct that the petitioner should be reinstated in service. This writ application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)