Patna High Court
Abhinash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioner must seek relief through a civil suit.
Summary
Abhinash Kumar, a candidate for constable recruitment, challenged the height measurements (164.5 cm and 164.2 cm) recorded by the Central Selection Board, asserting that a medical officer had measured him at 167 cm. He relied on earlier Patna High Court judgments (Akshita Singh and Raju) that ordered fresh measurements in similar cases. The Board contended that the height issue is a factual dispute and, citing the Division Bench decision in Ritu Kumari (LPA No.895 of 2014), argued that a writ petition is not the proper remedy. The Court examined the precedents and concluded that the earlier decisions favoring the petitioner were per incuriam because they ignored the Ritu Kumari ruling. Consequently, the Court declined to grant any relief by writ and directed the petitioner to file a civil suit if he wishes to pursue the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy to obtain a fresh measurement of a candidate's height in a recruitment process.
- Whether the High Court should set aside the height measurements made by the selection authority in view of earlier judgments.
Subjects
- height measurement
- recruitment
- writ jurisdiction
- civil suit
- factual dispute
- administrative law
- per incuriam
- judicial discipline
Judgment
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
2/5
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
3/5
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
4/5
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
5/5
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
Checking your session…