Allowed

Suaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2018CW/16383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to constitute a medical board to re-examine the petitioner's height for a Constable post. The Court ordered a refund of security deposit if the height is found 168cm or above, leading to appropriate appointment consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to constitute a medical board for height measurement; petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000; appointment to be granted if height is 168cm or above.

Suaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16383/2018

¶3

Suaram S/o Pusa Ram Chokidar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 1063, Choukidaro Ki Dhani, Khagata, Via Pipar Road, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur. ----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶11

12/12/2018

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia questioning the measurement of his height during course of Physical Standard Test (‘PST’).

¶13

It is inter alia claimed that the petitioner belongs to SC category and during course of PST held for the post of Constable, height of the petitioner was measured at 167.7cm and was permitted to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test (‘PET’), wherein, after the petitioner participated, he obtained 40 marks in all, however as the petitioner was granted relaxation in height, the candidates those who had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner and were of standard height, they were given precedence and granted appointment.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-16383/2018]

¶16

It is submitted that the respondents have wrongly measured the height of the petitioner, which is 168.5cm and in case, the height of the petitioner is taken as 168.5cm, he would fall within the merit and would be entitled for grant of appointment.

¶17

Initially, no material was placed on record for supporting the contentions raised, however, an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner alongwith a health certificate issued by the Medical Officer of CHC, Gotan inter alia indicating the height of the petitioner as 168.5cm.

¶18

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents alongwith the list of successful candidates, wherein, persons with regular height, the cut-off has been indicated as 36.75 and for the candidates having availed relaxation, the cut-off has been indicated as 43.25.

¶19

In view of the above facts & circumstances, wherein the petitioner, in case, his height is standard as per the requirement of advertisement with 40 marks, he would fall within merit and based on the health certificate, he is seeking to dispute the height measured by the respondents, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to constitute a medical board, which would examine the petitioner for the purpose of measurement of his height in terms of the advertisement.

¶20

The petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the said purpose. If ultimately, it is found that the case of the petitioner as claimed by him is correct, the said amount of Rs.5,000/- would be refunded back to the petitioner, however, if the petitioner fails, the said amount would stand forfeited.

¶21

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of 15 days, in case, the height of the petitioner is found as 168cm or

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-16383/2018]

¶24

above by the medical board, his case for appointment be dealt with appropriately looking to the marks obtained by him and be placed in the merit appropriately and grant him appointment in accordance with law.

¶25

With the above directions, the petitioner filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

¶26

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶27

13-Sumit/-

Suaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suaram v. State of Rajasthan

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

Durga Prasad and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Prahlad Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Neelam Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhajan Lal Yadav Vs State and Ors.

Anoop Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan, the Secretary

Bharti Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary