Patna High Court
Jay Kumar @ Jai Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 13 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1682 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8976 of 2000
======================================================
Jay Kumar @ Jai Kumar Singh Son of Sri Suraj Dev Singh Resident of
Village-Aspura, P.S.-Bikram, District-Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Director General-Cum-Inspector General of Police Bihar, Patna.
3. Additional Director General, Bihar Military Police, Patna.
4. Sri Mihir Kumar Singh DIG., BMP, Central Range, BMP Campus, Patna.
5. Commandant, Bihar Military Police-5, Phulwari Sharif, Patna.
6. Commandant, Bihar Military Police-14, Phulwari Sharif, Patna.
7. Commandant, Bihar Military Police-13, Gaya.
8. Commandant, Bihar Military Police-10, Phulwari Sharif, Patna.
9. Mahendra Narayan Choudhary Constable No. 395, C/o Commandant, Bihar
Military Police-14, Phulwarisharif, Patna.
10. Shailesh Kumar Sharma Constable No. 439, C/o Commandant, Bihar
Military Police-5, Phulwarisharif, Patna.
11. Basant Kumar Singh Constable No.118, C/o Commandant, Bihar Military
Police-5, Phulwarisharif, Patna.
12. Naresh Kumar Thakur, Constable No. 402, C/o Commandant, BMP-14,
Phulwari-sharif, Patna.
13. Sanjeev Kumar Constable No. 402, C/o Commandant, BMP-14, Phulwari-
sharif, Patna.
14. Aas Mohammad, Constable No.543, C/o Commandant, BMP-18, Bodh
Gaya, Distt.-Gaya
15. Ashok Sharma Constable No. 592, C/o Commandant, BMP-10, Phulwari-
sharif, Patna.
16. Dilip Kumar, Constable No. 455, C/o Constable No. 592, C/o Commandant,
BMP-5, Phulwari-sharif, Patna.
17. Mundrika Mochi, Constable No. 460, C/o Commandant, BMP-5, Phulwari-
sharif, Patna.
18. Bijay Kumar, Constable No. 464, C/o Commandant, BMP-5, Phulwari-
sharif, Patna.
19. Arvind Kumar, Constable No. 466, C/o Commandant, BMP-5, Phulwari-
sharif, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1682 of 2019 dt.13-03-2023
20. Gautam Kumar Jha C/o Commandant, BMP-5, Phulwari-Sharif, Patna.
21. Sheo Nandan Mahto C/o Commandant, BMP-5, Phulwari-sharif, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gosharve, AC to AAG-3.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 13-03-2023
Heard Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gosharve for
the State.
The appellant had applied for being
appointed as a Constable in the Bihar Military Police
against Advertisement No.1 of 1995 but on ground of
not having the requisite height, he was not selected.
The appellant thereafter approached the
High Court vide CWJC No. 8976 of 2000 and
submitted that he had the requisite height of 177
centimeters but, was wrongly excluded from
consideration on that ground alone. He further
submitted that several of the respondents in the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1682 of 2019 dt.13-03-2023
petition who had lesser height than the appellant
were selected.
It appears from the records that in CWJC No.
2354 of 1998 (Guddu Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors.), on a similar complaint, the matter
was refereed to the Additional Director General of
Police, BMP to examine such cases where there was
an allegation of wrong measurement for exclusion as
also for inclusion of others.
A detailed report was given by the Additional
Director General of Police, BMP stating that the
appellant and fifteen others, similarly situated, did
not qualify and that no person in the category of the
appellant with lesser height was selected as a sepoy
in the BMP. Only one instance was found of one
Mahendra Narayan Choudhary, who had lesser
height than the petitioner or the requisite height for
being selected who had been selected.
The aforesaid candidate has been put to
departmental proceeding for such folly.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1682 of 2019 dt.13-03-2023
Some others were appointed on the post of
Home Guard and not as Constable in BMP with whom
the appellant could not seek parity.
It was lastly urged by the appellant before
the Writ Court that if he did not qualify for being
considered for the post of Constable because of his
height, like others, he should have been chosen for
Home Guard or any other sports persons or trade
man sepoys, which required height of only 170
centimeters.
However, the learned Single Judge, on
finding that the appointment process had already
been closed against an advertisement which was
taken out in the year 1995 and that there are
disputed questions of facts from each side which
cannot be decided in the writ petition, non-suited the
appellant.
We too find that the process of selection is
over and that nobody in the category of the
appellant having lesser height than the requisite
height or the height of the appellant has been
selected as Constable.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1682 of 2019 dt.13-03-2023
Thus, we do not intend to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is thus dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Harish Kumar, J)
manoj/rishi-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.03.2023
Transmission Date
