'A AMENDED PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 WRIT PETITION No, t^/200 PETITIONER Cholesh Shanker Sahu Aged about 26 years S/OShriR.B. Sahu R/0 C/0 N.K. Rathore Dayalband Chowk, front Qf Sub Post Office Bilaspur (Chhattisgaqrh) ^- VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretar/ Department of Home D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director Generat of Police State of Chhattisgarh Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^•^ Additional Director General of Police (Administration) Police Headquarter Chhattisgarh Raipur Superintendent of Police Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ~>y 5. Superintendent of Police Durg (Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DRECnONS: (@ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTI8GARH: BILASPUR Sin^le Bench: Hon»MeShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. Wo. 12 of2004 Petitioner : Cholesh Shanker Sahu Versus Respondent : State pf Chhattisgarh & ofhers Shri D. Shashidharan, Adv<x*ate for the petitioner. Shri Aryind Dubey, Panel lawyer for fhe respondents. ORDBR (Passed on 5th Day ofJaauary, 2007) 1. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner submits that ia fhe exaaiinatioH held ia Septeniber, 2003 for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector, the petitioner was declared successfal in flie writteii test, However, the petitioner was denied opportunity of faciag the iater^iew on fhe grouud fhat the petitioner does iiot have fhe required height of 168 c.ia. The petitionerwas, thereafter, selected for appoiatnient on tlie post of Constable wherein the requirenient of the height was same i.e 168 c.sn. On perusal ofthe Annexure R/2, ffled by the respondent/State it appears tliat firstly the height was recorded as 168 C.IB. ia fhe column ineaiit for recordiag fhe height, fhereafter 167 has beeu iaserted wifhout any deletion or mitial. This itself is indicative of fhe fact fhat fhe height was not properly verified, More so when the required height of 168 c.m. for appointaient on fhe post of Constable has been found and fhe petitioner was appointed as Constable recording of fhe height in the Annexurc R/2 appears to be doubtful, Thus, the denial of fiiU process of selection to the petitioner further in physical verification test after his passiag the written test successfuUy is arbitraiy and unreasonable. 2. In view offhe above, the petition is aflowed and tlie respondents are directed to process the case of fhe petitioner after physical venfication of fhe height for selection pursuant to fhe exainination held on 11/12th September, 2003. If t.he petitioner is foiind successfiil aad if the age of the petitioner was fouad wifhin time on fhe date of holdiag of fhe exaiaination, fhe sanie will not come ia fhe way ofconsideration ofthe case ofthe petitioner and flie petitioner is entitied to relexatioii m age to fhat extent No order as to costs. TliaJta.ir Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge