Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of constable, cancel the appointment of respondent no.7 as being discriminatory and arbitrary and make enquiry with regard to the irregularities committed in an appointment of the constables through an independent agency.

2. The facts of the case lie in the narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement no. 2/1995 was issued for selection of constables in all the districts in Bihar. The said advertisement was published in the Newspaper, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement a large number of candidates including the petitioner, who belong to the reserve category, applied for the said post to the district of Muzaf- muzffarpur. The petitioner appeared in the physical test and his height was measured as 510". After undergoing all the tests he was duly selected and his name was published on the notice Board of the Muzaffarpur reserve office. Thereafter, the appointments of constable in the district of Muzaffarpur were made on the basis of the said selection but the petitioner was not appointed. He represented the matter before the higher authorities including the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur pointing out the irregularities made in the matter of appointment. It was asserted by him in the representation that persons who did not participate in the selection test such as respondent no.7 having lesser height than him have been appointed, copies of that representation have been annexed as Annexures 6 & 7 to the writ application but the authorities did not take any action and then he filed the present writ application.

3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent no.10), the Director General of Police (respondent no. 2), the D.I.G. (Administration) (respondent no.3), the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.6) and the private respondent no. 7 (Pawan Kumar Yadav).

4. First counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur wherein the stand taken by him is that out of the appointments made in 1993, 95 & 96 only four candidates in each year have been appointed on Special ground like compassionate ground. A copy of the list of recruitment made in the year, 1994 & 95 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. With regard to the respondent no.7 it is stated that he was appointed by order of the Director General of Police which was communicated to him by order of the A.I.G. (I), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, this Court directed the D.G.P. to file a counter affidavit to show as to under what authority of law the appointments of constable have been made on his direction.

5. Thereafter, the D.G.P. filed a counter affidavit on 13.3.99 wherein the stand taken by him in the counter affidavit is that respondent no.7 was not a candidate in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement no. 2/1995. He was appointed seperately as special case by the order of the police headquarter. It is further stated that with regard to the recruitment made on special ground such as bravery matter has been clarified by the then D.G.P. in a letter addressed to the Chief Secretary. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure B to the counter affidavit. It is stated therein that D.G.P. has power under section 12 of the Police Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to make such appointments on the ground of bravery and other factors based on specific recommendation of the senior and responsible officers. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on his behalf wherein it is stated that in terms of the provisions of rule 661(c) of the Bihar Police Manual the Selection Board is not precluded from appointing persons for special reasons and on good ground e