Pramath Patnaik, J.

Since the aforementioned Civil Review applications [Civil Review No. 8 of 2016 with Civil Review No. 12 of 2016] involve common questions of law, therefore, the said applications have been heard analogously and with the consent of the respective counsels, are being disposed of by this common order.

…

Civil Review No. 8 of 2016

…

2. The present Civil Review application has been preferred for modification/review of the order dated 11.06.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No.2917 of 2010, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim on the basis of re-measurement report of the Medical Board and to allot additional point according to the said measurement and pass appropriate order, regarding his appointment, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, passed therein.

3. It has been averred in the Review application that the petitioner has filed the writ application bearing W.P. (S) No. 2917 of 2010 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.06.2013 and the Notification of Home Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand was published on 12.11.2001 after bifurcation of State for recruitment of Constables in Police Dept. and accordingly, Advt. was published in 2004 vide Advt. No. 01/2004 for selection of constables in the Dept. of Police, vide memo No. 2026/P. dtd 18.08.2010 of the DGP, Jharkhand, the merit list prepared against said advt., now became time barred. It has been averred that the term used by the petitioner ‘Re-measurement’, is not in fact true, which he claims to be violative of order of Hon’ble Court. It is process of recruitment which must be followed according to Rule 672 format 104 of the Police Manual. It has further been submitted that after considering all the above mentioned facts and circumstances, if the review petitioner complies the order dated 11.06.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No.2917 of 2010 it will open flood gate of litigations. Further, it has been submitted that on the ground that if a person having height 166 Cm will be selected/recruited, then all other candidates having height a little bit above will claim for their respective appointments and hence the order dated 11.06.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No.2917 of 2010 needs to be modified.

…

Civil Review No. 12 of 2016

…

4. The present Civil Review application has been preferred for modification/review of the order dated 20.06.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No.4966 of 2009, whereby this Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate order of appointment on the basis of the said report of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribag within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, passed therein.

5. It has been averred in the Review application that the petitioner has filed the writ application bearing W.P. (S) No. 4966 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.06.2013 and the Hon’ble Writ Court ought to have reserved a liberty with the review petitioner or its competent authorities to verify the measurement and other parameters of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 as per law and Rule 672 (A) of the Police Manual and similarly they ought to have been granted liberty to take final decision on the basis of final findings. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 could be directed to be appointed only subject to verification of his height and other parameters upon compliance of Rule 672 (A) of the Police Manual. It has further been submitted that the Chairman, Selection Board No. 3-cum-Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh cannot exercise his power beyond statutory procedure for recruitment as per Rule 672 (A) and Form 104 of the Police Manual and he had to fill the format prescribed for the same by writing/filling the column of height chest etc., So, calling the writ petitioner/respondent for medical examination cannot amount to violation of th