Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020WRIA/96/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition after a medical board determined the petitioner's height was 168.2 cm, above the prescribed 168 cm limit, directing authorities to proceed with his recruitment consideration.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's disqualification was quashed; the competent authority directed to proceed with his case based on the corrected medical report showing he meets the height requirement.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 96 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Yadav,Nar Singh Narayan Verma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to second respondent to remeasure the length of the petitioner before the competent authority/medical board and for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to provisionally appear in the physical standard test which was stated to be held in the month of January, 2020.

¶8

The record in question reflects that Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board made an advertisement for recruitment of constables and equivalent post in Civil Police and Constable PAC. The petitioner having the requisite qualification applied for the same. The petitioner qualified the written examination and called for document verification / physical standard test. His documents were verified and he was sent for physical standard test in which his length was found to be 167.7 cm. which is below the prescribed length of 168 cm and as such he was disqualified. It is alleged that the length was done by computer by adopting wrong method. The actual height of petitioner is 168.2 cm.

¶9

On the matter being taken up on 6.3.2020, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-

¶10

"1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

2. The contention of the 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.

¶12

3. 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, District Amroha on 17.03.2020. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost with Chief Medical Officer, Amroha. The Chief Medical Officer, Amroha 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 17.03.2020. The

¶13

petitioner shall also produce materials in support of his identity before the Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 17.03.2020 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, Amroha before this Court on or before 6.4.2020.

¶14

4. Post this matter as fresh on 6.4.2020 before the appropriate Court.

¶15

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

¶16

On the matter being taken up today, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has produced the instructions dated 18.6.2020 along with the report of Medical Board dated 17.6.2020 kept in sealed cover. The report was opened and on the basis of medical report learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has stated that in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Court the petitioner was medically examined and in which his height was found to be 168.2 cm and as such his height is suitable for the post in question.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the height of the petitioner is found to be 168.2, which is above the prescribed limit of 168 cm., the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered by the authority concerned and he cannot be rejected on the basis of height. Consequently, the competent authority is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and considering the aforesaid medical report dated 17.6.2020.

¶18

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. The aforesaid medical report is taken on record.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 SP/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishan Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

km. Mahima Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikas Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others