Lovely Kumari vs State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner was not selected in the recruitment process under the Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 for selection of Sub-Inspectors, as she was found to be short of the requisite minimum height criteria by few millimeters. She appealed against the measurement assailing the correctness of the same. Accordingly, she was given an opportunity for re-measurement which as per procedure was done in presence of the Chairman of the Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission"). During re-measurement also the petitioner was found to be short of the requisite minimum height criteria.

Based on her height measurement done elsewhere, petitioner claims her height to be fulfilling the minimum requisite height criteria; and approached the writ court for a direction upon the respondents to carry out a second re-measurement of her height. The same has been rejected by the writ court by the order, which is before us by way of intra-court appeal.

The issue regarding determination of height of an applicant and such factual dispute arising in the course of recruitment process has earlier been considered by a coordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 895 of 2014, wherein this court has observed as follows:-

“What is the height of the petitioner-appellant and whether her height is of required standard or not are questions 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.”

In the instant proceedings, we do not find any reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 895 of 2014.

We, therefore, dispose of the instant L.P.A. with the observations and directions extracted above, from the order passed in L.P.A. No. 895 of 2014.