Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/11047/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged ineligibility due to height discrepancy. Appellate authority measured petitioner at 169.2 cm. Hospital report stated 169.6 cm, still short of 170 cm requirement. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is ineligible for the post due to falling short of the stipulated height requirement.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Staff Selection Commission… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11047/2015

¶4

SANJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. H.P. Chakravotri and Mr. P.Sekhar, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripu Dhaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, with Mr. Satya Ranjan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

¶9

O R D E R % 13.01.2016

¶10

The present petition has been filed praying inter alia for

¶11

issuance of direction to the respondents to quash the result of PET dated 9.9.2015 and for issuance of directions to the respondents to get the petitioner examined by an independent agency to establish his height. In view of the controversy raised with regard to the petitioner’s height, which was found to be 169.3 centimeters by the Medical Board of the respondents as against the stipulated height requirement of a minimum of 170 centimeters, the petitioner was declared ineligible.

¶12

On an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority, it was noticed that the petitioner’s height was not 169.3

¶13

W.P.(C) 11047/2015 Page 1 of 2

¶14

centimeters, but 169.2 centimeters. On 30.11.2015, so as to verify the petitioner’s exact height, he was directed to visit the Army Research and Referral Hospital and the hospital was directed to submit a report.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents hands over the report forwarded by the Army Research and Referral Hospital in a sealed cover, which has been opened. A perusal of the said report reveals that the Board constituted by the Hospital has opined that the petitioner’s height is 169.6 centimeters, which falls short by 0.40 centimeters of the minimum height requirement, as stipulated by the respondent.

¶16

While taking on record the said report, the present petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is found to be ineligible for the post of Sub-Inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), Delhi Police, due to falling short of the stipulated height requirement fixed by the respondents.

¶17

No orders as to costs.

¶18

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶19

R.K. GAUBA, J

¶20

JANUARY 13, 2016 s

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

W.P.(C) 11047/2015

Sanjay Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

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

Nabin Kishore Chouhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Naveen Kumar Anand (Retd.) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Neelam Kaura Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Rajesh Sachdeva Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prashant Chauhan Vs Tribunal (Under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (Central District

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Ved Prakash Gupta and Anr.

Npsc Co-Operative Group Housingh Society Ltd. Vs Shashi Sood & Others

Rahul & Ors. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

Nabin Kishore Chouhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Swain Vs UOI and Ors.

M/S Neural Magic Systems Ltd. & Ors. Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

Vk Yadav Vs UOI and Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Ved Prakash Gupta and Anr.

Rahul & Ors. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.