Dismissed

P.Karthik, S/O.v.Pandi, v. the Chairman

Madras HC29 Aug 2017WP(MD)/16227/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's disqualification from uniformed services recruitment due to an alleged improper chest measurement. The court reviewed video recordings which showed measurements complied with standards, upholding the disqualification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Karthik, S/O.v.Pandi, Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16227 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12901 of 2017

P.Karthik

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Chairman,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

¶12

Old Commissioner of Police Office,

¶13

Pantheon Road,Egmore, Chennai –600 008.

¶14

The Chairman,

¶15

Recruitment Sub-Committee,

¶16

Madurai Centre & Inspector General of Police, Cirmes, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 24.08.2017 in C.No.R2/150/2017 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently test for the petitioner (Enrolment Number.2420472) for the Post of Grade II Police Constable, Grade II Jail Warders and Fireman in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board 2017.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugazhendhi,

¶20

Additional Advocate General

¶21

Assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, Special Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

By consent of both parties, this writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

2.The petitioner, having passed S.S.L.C, applied for the post of Grade -II Police Constables / Grad-II Jail Warders / Fireman – 2017, when applications were called for by the respondent Police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department. Subsequently, after passing the written examination, the petitioner was called for for the Physical Endurance Test.

¶25

¶26

3.Now, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the respondents have not measured his chest measurement properly. As a result, he has been found disqualified.

¶27

4.In view thereof, when the matter was earlier listed before

¶28

this Court, this Court directed the respondents to produce the video recordings taken at the time of measurement.

¶29

5.As per the said direction, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Police Department produced the video recordings and the same was played before me in the presence of the learned counsel on either side and also the petitioner.

¶30

6.A perusal of the video recordings would go to show that the petitioner was measured at 85.1 c.m in normal and after expansion of the chest he was measured at 88.9 c.m. Therefore, the petitioner is rightly found disqualified by the respondent Police Department.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

The Chairman,

¶37

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

¶38

Old Commissioner of Police Office,

¶39

Pantheon Road,Egmore, Chennai –600 008.

¶40

The Chairman,

¶41

Recruitment Sub-Committee,

¶42

Madurai Centre &

¶43

Inspector General of Police, Cirmes, Madurai.

¶44

+1cc to M/S. R.VENKATESAN, Advocate, SR.No.75200.

¶45

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.75409.

¶46

W.P.(MD)No. 16227 of 2017 29.08.2017

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dsk

¶48

SDS/SV:MMS/SAR 3/30.08.2017/2P/5C

P.Karthik, S/O.v.Pandi, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Karthik, S/O.v.Pandi, v. the Chairman

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

K.Pasumpon, Vs the Assistant Engineer

K.Savadammal Vs the District Collector

S.Ravichandran, Vs State of Tamilnadu Represented

K. Ramalingam Vs the Principal Secretary to

G.Peter Arul Selvan Vs the Commissioner of

P.Saravanan Vs the Chairman