The central legal point established in the judgment is that the policy decision of the State, which prioritized age and educational qualification in case of equal marks, influenced the court's decision in upholding the appointment of the candidate with the higher age.

1. This writ petition has been filed praying for appointment on the post of Constable.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner applied for the post of constable in pursuance of a public advertisement. She appeared in the physical as well as written test and secured 14 marks. However, another candidate, who also secured 14 marks, have been given appointment. The petitioner was given 14 marks in total, i.e. six marks for educational qualification and eight marks for height. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that height of the petitioner was more than the other candidate and therefore, petitioner is entitled to 15 marks instead of 14 marks and consequently she may be appointed as Constable.

3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that height of the petitioner was measured by the respondents as 163 c.m. and therefore, petitioner got eight marks for height and for educational qualification petitioner has got six marks and therefore, total marks obtained by the petitioner is 14, whereas another candidate has also secured 14 marks. Looking to the policy of the respondent State, which is Annexure A to the counter affidavit, essentially Clause 11 thereof, in case two candidate have secured same marks, first thing to be compared is age. If age is also same, then comes the comparison of educational qualification and if educational qualification is also same, it is on the basis of height of the candidate the matter is to be resolved, i.e. the taller person shall be given appointment. In the present case, petitioner is younger than the other candidate securing same marks. Date of birth of the petitioner is October, 1986 whereas the date of birth of the selected candidate is 22nd July, 1971. Thus, as the petitioner and the other candidate have secured same marks, considering the age factor, the candidate who is senior is selected and this selection is absolutely proper, true, correct and in consonance with the policy laid down by the respondents, which is annexure A to the counter affidavit and petitioner, being junior in age has rightly been denied appointment.

4. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:

(I) Petitioner applied for the post of constable in reply to the public advertisement given in the year 2007. The public advertisement is at Annexure 1 to the memo of the petition. Thereafter, petitioner appeared in the physical test and in the other tests taken by the respondent State. The petitioner secured 14 marks. The petitioner's height was measured by the respondents as 163 c.m., for which petitioner is given eight marks and for educational qualifications petitioner has been given six marks. It further appears from the facts of the case and the counter affidavit that another candidate has also got same marks, i.e. 14 and in this circumstances, as per the policy decision of the State, which is dated 12th November, 2001 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit) when two candidates have secured same marks, the candidate, who is senior in age will be given appointment. If the age is also same, it is on the basis of higher educational qualification the candidate will be given appointment and if the educational qualification is also same, then comes the height and the candidate having better height will be given appointment.

(II) In consideration of the aforesaid policy decision at Annexure A to the counter affidavit and also considering the fact that petitioner and the selected candidate have got same marks, i.e. 14, only option left out was to compare their age. The date of birth of the petitioner is 2nd October, 1986 while date of birth of the selected candidate is 22nd July, 1971. In view of these facts, selection and appointment made by the respondents is absolutely correct, legal, proper and in co