Disposed

Baliram Sah v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11557/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this order, the High Court of Delhi observed an interpolation in the medical certificate regarding the petitioner's height. The court directed a re-measurement at a specified hospital and authorized the petitioner to resume training if the height is found to be 156 cms. or above.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to get height measured at Army Research and Referral Hospital; if height is 156 cms. or above, petitioner allowed to resume training at INS Chilka immediately within one week of me

Baliram Sah Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~31

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 11557/2016 BALIRAM SAH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Adv. versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Shilpa Singh with Ms.Pragya Srivastava & Ms.Soumya Kumar, Advs. for R-2 & 3.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA

¶6

O R D E R % 07.12.2016

¶7

This writ petition is directed against rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Navik in the Indian Coast Guard on the ground of his height falling short of the requisite minimum height.

¶8

The minimum height required for appointment in the Indian Coast Guard as Navik is apparently 156 cms. According to the petitioner, his height is 158 cms. The petitioner claims that his height was found to be 158 cms. upon measurement at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. According to the petitioner after he successfully cleared the written test, he had to take the Physical Efficiency Test, after which, he was enrolled as a Navik, and given registration No. NNG/LK/T/216/39648 and Batch No.02/2016.

¶9

This indicates that on measurement, the height of the petitioner was found to be at least 156 cms. as otherwise he would not have been cleared. As required, the petitioner reported for training at the INS, Chilka. At the INS Chilka, he was again medically examined after which his candidature was rejected on the ground of short height. A copy of the certificate of the OIC Recruitment Team is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-P2. It indicates that the height was noted as 156 cms but 156 was struck out and thereafter 155.5 cms. was inserted.

¶10

Having regard to the interpolation in the final certificate and having regarding the fact that the petitioner was initially cleared after measurement of his height, we deem it appropriate to refer the petitioner to the Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi for measurement of his height. The height of the petitioner shall be measured at the Army Research and Referral Hospital within two weeks and if the petitioner’s height is found to be 156 cms. or above, the petitioner shall immediately within one week from the date of measurement, be allowed to resume training at INS Chilka.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of

¶12

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

¶13

ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J

¶14

DECEMBER 07, 2016/ gm

Baliram Sah v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Sah v. Union of India & 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

Union Public Service Commission Vs Patil Bhushan Manohar & Ors.

Shobha Kaur Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.

Ravindra Singh Mann Vs Union of India & Ors.

Green Fields Public School Vs Mahinder Kumar

UOI & Anr. Vs the Defence Marine Engg. Tech. S

M/S Delhi Tourist Bus Service Vs Dayal Singh

Subhash Chand Dhigan Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shashi Bala Pathak Vs Delhi Development Authority

Ravindra Singh Mann Vs Union of India & Ors.

Satyabir Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bhudev Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nirmal Jain & Ors. Vs Ahuja Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Jasraj Singh Bhati Vs Union of India

M/S Meena Advertisers Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.