Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Abhinash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 238 Patna

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 238 Patna
Judgement Date : 30 January, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Abhinash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 January, 2026

Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8694 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Abhinash Kumar Son of Bimal Kant Yadav, Resident of Village-Shadhpur,
     P.O.-Panchrukhi, PS-Sadhpur, District- Bhagalpur.

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Sardar Patel Bhawan,
     6th Floor, Block-A/626, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-23.
3.   The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Sardar
     Patel Bhawan, 6th Floor, Block-A/626, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna-23.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s      :      Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advoate
                                      Ms. Ritika Rani, Advocate
                                      Mr. Vardaan Manglam, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s      :      Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP-5
     For the C.S.B.C.          :      Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
                                      Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                      Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
     ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 30-01-2026

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

Counsel for the Central Selection Board (Constable

Recruitment) and learned Counsel for the State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner was appeared in the examination of selection of

Constable advertised in Advertisement No.5 of 2020 through

Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment). Counsel

submits that his measurement was wrongly made and shown

only 164.50 cm and subsequently upon oppose it was measured Patna High Court CWJC No.8694 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026

as 164.2 cm on the same day.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that

he has annexed the height measured by Medial Officer, Sadar

Hospital, Bhagalpur, where his height was measured by

government doctor is 167 cm. Counsel relied on the judgments

passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Akshita Singh Vs.

The State of Bihar decided on 03.12.2021 in CWJC

No.14774 of 2021 and case of Raju Vs. The State of Bihar

and others passed on 09.03.2022 in CWJC No.10956 of 2021.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in both cases a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities

to made fresh measurement. Counsel for the petitioner submits

that following the said decision made by the coordinate Bench,

respondent be directed to remeasure the height of the petitioner.

He further submits that he is ready to pay whatever be the cost

for measurement of height by Medical Board.

4. Learned Counsel for the Central Selection

Board (Constable Recruitment), on the other hand, submits that

the measurement of the petitioner was made and it was found

that his height is less than the basic limit 165 cm thereafter the

petitioner had preferred appeal and the appellate authority again

measured the height and found less than 165 cm. He submits Patna High Court CWJC No.8694 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026

that initially his height was measured 164.5 cm and upon appeal

it has been found 164.2 cm. Learned Counsel submits that such

type of dispute has been tested by Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Ritu Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar &

Others passed in L.P.A. No.895 of 2014, arising out of CWJC

No.1620 of 2014 in which vide order dated 20.10.2014 this

Hon'ble Court has found that writ Court is not the appropriate

Court to provide such type of remedy and liberty has been

granted to the petitioner to file Civil Suit.

5. After hearing the parties, it is admitted that the

petitioner appeared in the selection process, first time his height

was measured as 164.5 cm but upon appeal re-measurement

took place and in re-measurement his height was found 164.2

cm. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred the writ petition

before this Hon'ble Court and decision of the coordinate

Benches has been annexed here in the present writ petition,

which was in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the

respondent relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench

in LPA No.895 of 2014. The observation of Hon'ble Division

Bench made in the case of Ritu Kumari (supra) are as follows:-

"What is the height of the petitioner-appellant and whether her height is of required standard or not are questions Patna High Court CWJC No.8694 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026

of fact and have to be decided by recording evidence.

Logically, therefore, a writ petition is not an appropriate course of remedy in the context of the facts of the present case.

While, therefore, maintaining the order, dated 22.04.2014, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 1620 of 2014, we make it clear that it would remain open to the petitioner- appellant to challenge the findings, with regard to her height, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction and seek necessary remedy for her grievances.

With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand dispose of.

If a suit is filed by the petitioner-appellant, the civil court shall deal with the suit expeditiously and dispose of the same, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of institution of the suit."

6. After hearing the parties, this Court reached on

the conclusion that the decisions made by this Hon'ble Court,

which has been annexed by the petitioner, has not considered

the Division Bench decision made in LPA No.895 of 2014

which is quoted above. Therefore, this Court holds that the Patna High Court CWJC No.8694 of 2022 dt.30-01-2026

decisions which are in favour of the petitioner Akshita Singh

(supra) and Raju Vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra)

are per incuriam s it has not been passed considering the

decision of LPA No.895 of 2014. With a view to maintain the

judicial discipline, this Court has no option but to dispose off

the writ petition observing the principles laid down in LPA

No.895 of 2014.

7. Hence, in that view of the matter, this Court is

not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in spite thereof

liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that if suit is filed by

the petitioner the Civil Court shall deal with the suit

expeditiously and dispose off the same preferably within six

months from the date of this order.

8. With this direction, this writ petition is

disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          31.01.2026
Transmission Date
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter