JAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

(2.) Pursuant to Advertisement No 1 of 1995, the petitioner herein had made his application for being appointed as a Constable in the Bihar Military Police (for brevity, BMP). The petitioner was an applicant under the General Category. The case of the petitioner is that upon his assessment on various parameters in the process of selection, he has been discriminated against. Those, having lesser height than the petitioner, have been selected and appointed as Constables, whereas the petitioner, who was above the minimum required height for unreserved category, i. e., 177 centimeters, has been rejected in the process of selection. The discrimination has been made out by alleging that persons, who had participated in the selection process and have been impleaded in the instant proceedings as respondents No. 9 to 21, have been selected despite being disqualified on the ground of height and despite the fact that they had lesser height than the petitioner. Petitioner has also alleged that the benefit of relaxation has been granted to some on grounds of their sports capability and on the ground that they were appointed as Trade Rank Sepoy although no such post as Trade Rank Sepoy exists.

(3.) Mr Ajay Kumar Thakur has laid great emphasis on the fact that appointment of some of the respondents were the subject matter of CWJC No 3253 of 1997 (Sheoshankar Tiwari and Others -Versus- State of Bihar and Others), CWJC No 2354 of 1998 (Guddu Kumar Singh and Others -Versus- State of Bihar Others) as well as CWJC No 2137 of 1999 (Guddu Kumar Singh -Versus- State of Bihar and Others). It is pointed out that in the case of Guddu Kumar Singh (supra), this Court had directed for examining the issue with respect to some of the candidates appointed and consider the case of the petitioners therein. It is submitted that pursuant to entire exercise undertaken after the orders passed by this Court in the case of Guddu Kumar Singh (supra), Additional Director General of Police (for brevity, ADGP) (BMP), Patna brought out an order dated 22.06.2011. The same is also impugned by the petitioner by way of Interlocutory Application No 1 of 2019. By the said order, the ADGP has, after considering the case of the petitioners therein, passed a reasoned order. The case of 16 petitioners were considered and all were rejected even upon reconsideration. It was also mentioned in the order issued by the ADGP (BMP) that some of the private respondents, common to this instant proceeding, have been appointed under Home Guard Category and, as such, the petitioner could not claim parity with them. It is specific assertion of the ADGP (BMP) that no candidate in the petitioner's category, having lesser height than the petitioner, was appointed in the process wherein the petitioner had participated. The case of only one of the private respondents, namely, Mahendra Narayan Choudhary was found to have been made by a wrong measurement and, accordingly, departmental proceedings were initiated against Mahendra Narain Choudhary.