Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2020WRIA/1454/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges the declaration of the petitioner as unfit for Constable Civil Police and Constable P.A.C. posts due to alleged erroneous height measurement. The High Court upheld the petitioner alleges his height exceeded the prescribed minimum of 168 centimeters based on a new medical board report. The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to issue admit cards for furt

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Respondent directed to issue admit card for petitioner to undergo physical efficiency test within three weeks.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1454 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

In terms of the order passed by this Court, the report has been furnished in a sealed cover. The report was opened in the presence of the counsels.

¶6

The present petition has been filed alleging that in terms of the advertisement no. P.R.P.B.-I-I(138)/2018 in the year 2018, the petitioner appeared for being considered for appointment to the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable P.A.C. The selection process is specified in the specific Rules framed as Uttar Pradesh Constable Police and Head Constable Police Service Rules, 2015 as amended in the year 2017 and now known as Uttar Pradesh Constable Police and Head Constable Police Service Rules (First Amendment) Rules, 2017.

¶7

The counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner duly appeared in the written examination held on 18.6.2018, in which he was declared as qualified and was therefore called for document verification and physical standard verification at the Reserved Police Lines, Moradabad, which was scheduled to be held on 27.12.2019. The petitioner appeared in terms of the said notice issued to the petitioner for appearance (contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), the petitioner submitted his testimonials for the physical standard test. In the said test, the respondents declared the petitioner unfit on the ground that his height was less than the 168 centimeters, which is the prescribed minimum height. In terms of Rule 15, the petitioner

¶8

raised objections to the said measurement and he states that the same staff once again measured the height of the petitioner and found it to be less than the minimum required specified height of 168 centimeters. The petitioner complains that the physical verification was not done properly, and he relies upon the earlier test, in which the petitioner had appeared, in pursuance to a prior advertisement, in which the petitioner had cleared the physical standard test.

¶9

He further argues that even in the earlier advertisement, the requirement of minimum height was 168 centimeters and a perusal of letter dated 19th December, 2018 as well as the admit card issued to the petitioner (at Page 35) that the petitioner was above 168 centimeters heights and was thus called for physical efficiency test, unfortunately, however, the petitioner did not qualify in the physical efficiency test and was thus not selected in the earlier round.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner argues that the height of the petitioner is more than 168 centimeters. He further relies upon the Rules to impress that the measurement of the height has to be done by the standard equipments, which are BIS certified, which was not done according to petitioner while measuring the height of the petitioner. He further states that no written communication has been provided to indicate as to what was the height of the petitioner when the test was done twice. He thus submits that in the same test, earlier the petitioner was found to be having more than the minimum height prescribed, whereas in the subsequent examination held in pursuance to the present advertisement, the height of the petitioner has been found to be less than the prescribed minimum standard of 168 centimeters and there is no communication with regard to the actual height of the petitioner as measured in the test conducted.

¶11

In view of the said averments, this Court vide its order dated 4.2.2020, had passed the following order:-

¶12

"Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶13

In the present petition, similar controversy as in Writ A No.1375 of 2020 arises. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the height of the petitioner was above the prescribed height limit of 168 centimeters, however, he has been denied only on erroneous computation of the height of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has certificates issued by the Medical Authorities to establish that his height is above the prescribed limit of 168 centimeters.

¶14

In view of the contrary reports, I deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall appear along with certified copy of this order before the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar on 17.02.2020. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost with Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar, the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar is directed to constitute a Medical Board constituting of three Doctors of the level of Professor and Associate Professor available at the local District Hospital. The C.M.O. shall also inform the S.S.P. of the District, who shall depute an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 17.02.2020. The petitioner shall also produce materials in support of his identity before the Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 17.02.2020 and he would be medically examined with regard to his height by the Board of three doctors. The report signed by the Chairman of the Board would be sent through the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar before this Court on or before 26.2.2020. This report would constitute the basis for the Court to determine as to whether the report of the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board is liable to be questioned or not?

¶15

Post this matter in the additional cause list on 26.2.2020 before the appropriate Court.

¶16

The matter shall not be treated as tied-up or part heard to this Court."

¶17

In pursuance to the said direction, the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar constituted a team of three senior doctors in the presence of Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Bulandshahar and conducted a test to ascertain the actual height of the petitioner and has filed the report before this Court that the height of the petitioner has been found to be 168.1 centimeters. The said report also annexed a photograph of the measurement of the height, perusal whereof makes it clear that the height of the petitioner is more than 168 centimeters i.e. 168.1 centimeters. There is no reason to disbelieve the said

¶18

report, which was done by three senior doctors in the presence of Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) and there is nothing on record by any one of them to indicate that they are dissatisfied or not agreeable to the measurement of the height.

¶19

In view thereof and coupled with the fact that in the earlier advertisement, the petitioner was found to be having more than 168 centimeters of height, the irresistible conclusion is that the height of the petitioner is more than the prescribed minimum standard i.e. 168 centimeters and, thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was wrongly deprived of his right to participate in the physical efficiency test and to be considered for appointment in accordance with the advertisement issued.

¶20

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to take steps for issuing the requisite admit card to the petitioner for undergoing physical efficiency test subject to there being no objection with regard to the testimonials, submitted by the petitioner. The said exercise is to be done within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 3 within a period of one week from today. The Standing Counsel shall also communicate a copy of this order to the respondent no. 3.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the said direction.

¶22

A photocopy of the report as well as a copy of this order shall be provided to Standing Counsel by the Office, without payment of any charges.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.2.2020 SR

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Sirohi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prateek Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Keshav Singh Vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Others

Naresh Mittal Died and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Om Prakash Sharma @ Bijendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secretary Education and Others