Bharti Kumari Chauhan vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 25.07.2018 has been brought on record by the respondents by way of Annexure-E

to the counter affidavit and was not available to the petitioners prior thereto.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not raised any serious objection to the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of the writ petition.

For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the prayer for amendment of the writ petition is allowed and the I.A. shall be treated as part

of the writ petition.

CWJC NO. 18695 of 2018

At the outset and after some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition on behalf of petitioner no.

1.

Permission is accorded. The writ petition insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, stands dismissed as withdrawn.

The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner nos. 2 to 8 have been claimed in the writ petition -

“I. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to join

as Constable in Bihar Police on their selection made pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board

(Constable Appointment) on 29.07.2017.

II. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-measure the heights of the

petitioners if at all required by electronic device in the manner it was done at the time of selection.

III. Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.â€​

The short facts of the case according to the petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are that pursuant to an Advertisement No. 01 of 2017 issued by the Central

Selection Board (Constable Appointment) on 29.07.2017, they applied for appointment as constables in Bihar Police, Bihar Military Police etc. and

were issued admit cards. One of the conditions in the advertisement required women candidates to be of minimum height of 155 cm. Upon

participation in the selection process, they were declared successful and found place in the merit list issued in June, 2018. When these petitioners went

to submit their joining in August, 2018, their height was re-measured and they were denied joining on the pretext that their height was short of the

minimum requisite.

Learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 to 8 submits that the petitioners have wrongly been denied their joining and the re-measurement is not

reliable. He draws support from the fact that pursuant to a similar subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2019 which also required the minimum

height of women candidates to be 155 cm, the petitioner no. 1 who had similarly been denied her joining under the 2017 advertisement on the same

ground, was found to fulfill the criteria of minimum height of 155 cm. and was appointed as such. It is therefore submitted that the said agency has

erroneously made different measurements at different points of time.

Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. It is stated that after the initial measurement, the height of the petitioners was

measured for the second time during joining at Rohtas District, when their height was found to be below the minimum requisite. On the direction of the

Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), fresh measurement was done, the third time, and yet again it was found that the petitioners were

below the minimum height. It is therefore submitted that on two successive occasions when measurement was taken, the petitioners did not qualify

and as such they have rightly been denied appointment. It is submitted that as far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, it may not be a case of

erroneous measurement; rather she may have grown in height considering the time which had elapsed between the two selection processes, the first

in the year 2017 and the second in the year 2019.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even between the second and third measurements there is difference in height

measurements of several other candidates. Some of them had been found to be below the minimum height requirement in the second measurement

whereas they have been shown as 155 cm. in height in the third measurement, such as the candidates at serial nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13 (Annexure-

D).

Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be met by granting

liberty to the petitioner nos. 2 to 8 to file a representation before the Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment) (respondent no. 4) for redressal

of their grievances. If any such representation is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its

own merits in accordance with law and after grant of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nos. 2 to 8, expeditiously and in any event preferably

within a further period of twelve weeks thereafter. To facilitate disposal, the petitioners shall furnish their mobile numbers and e-mail IDs to the

respondent no. 4 within a week from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that in view of the ongoing Covid- 19 pandemic, any correspondence between the parties may be made through e- mail and the

petitioner nos. 2 to 8 shall be at liberty to request for hearing through video conference.