Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7119 of 2011 dated 6th August, 2014 whereby the petition preferred by these appellants was dismissed and hence, the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Counsel for the appellants submitted that these appellants had applied for the post of Constable in pursuance of a public advertisement No. 3 of 2009 and they were allowed appointment after a several tests taken by the respondents. These appellants cleared all the tests and ultimately they were called as per Annexure -2 series, letters, for verifications of the documents, etc. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that thereafter they were allowed to go on training on 29th June, 2011, but, their services were terminated without any show cause notice from 21st August, 2011. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that their services cannot be terminated after the measurement of their height by the respondents. The minimum height required is 165 cms. This height was already measured by the officers of the State of Jharkhand and now the State cannot say that the height of these appellants is less than the minimum. These facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal may be allowed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no appointment has been given to these appellant on the post of Constable. Moreover, the highly disputed question of fact about the height is also involved as per the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. The marks are being allotted on the basis of tests, the educational qualifications and the height, etc. and if these appellants are securing lesser marks for height and if others are having higher marks,' then these appellants cannot be' appointed on the post of Constable. The fact has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Moreover, the candidates have already been appointed in pursuance of Advertisement No. 3 of 2009 and if this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, there will be bound the few other candidates, who services will have to be terminated and those candidates have not been joined as party respondents and therefore also, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: - - (i) It appears from the record that these appellants applied for the post of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement No. 3 of 2009 in the Indian Reserved Battalion. It appears that these appellants cleared the examination and, therefore, they were called for verification of their documents and other details of the candidates and it appears that there was also a verification in the height measurement. Thereafter, specific marks were allotted to the educational qualification, the clearance of examination marks and also few marks were allotted for the height of a candidate. The total marks are to be considered for appointment of the candidates in the selection list. It appears from the facts of the case that these appellants were not having a height which is minimum required for the appointment which is 165 cms. and, therefore, they cannot claim appointment on the post constables. (ii) In fact, these appellants have not been appointed on the post of Constables at all and, hence, there is no question whatsoever arises for show cause notice to be given to them for the termination of their services. (iii) Even otherwise also, if this Letters Patent Appeal is to be allowed, few candidates who are selected and appointed, their services will have to be terminated. Those persons are not joined as party respondents in the writ petition nor in the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, this also Letters Patent Appeal is not tenable. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and the reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the decision given by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7119 of 2011 dated 6th August, 2014 is true and correct and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the disputes between the parties. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.;