Allowed

Bhanwar Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 May 2023CW/3872/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging discharge from police constable service due to height discrepancy found during training. Court remeasured petitioner's height, confirmed he met requirements, quashed the discharge order, and directed restoration with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order dated 04.06.2003; direction to respondents to grant all consequential benefits and restore petitioner to service within three months.

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012052]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3872/2003

¶4

Bhanwar Singh son of Shri Manohar Singh R/o Village Bhilwara Tehsil Jhalra Patan District Jhalawar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajastha, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Additional Director General of Police (Training), Rajasthan Police Academy, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.

¶9

Commandant, Police Training School, Kishangarh District Ajmer.

¶10

Superintendent of Police, Ajmer.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Naruka for Mr. Rupin Kala

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

25/05/2023

¶16

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶17

following prayer:

¶18

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing writ, order or direction;

¶19

(i) the impugned order dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure6) be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to continue in service as constable under respondent no.4, with all consequential benefits;

¶20

(ii) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

[2023/RJJP/012052]

[CW-3872/2003]

(2 of 5)

present case may also be passed in favour of humble petitioner.

¶25

(iii) cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after clearing the Physical Standard Test / Physical Efficiency Test the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Constable vide order dated 17.11.2001. Counsel submits that after completion of probation period the petitioner was sent for training where his height was measured and it was found to be 167 cms and only on this ground his services were discharged vide impugned order dated 04.06.2003. Counsel submits that once the petitioner was medically fit as per the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules of 1989’) there was no reason or occasion available with the respondents to treat the petitioner ineligible by measuring his height again. Counsel submits that entire exercise regarding measuring of height was done by the respondents prior to passing of his appointment order dated 17.11.2001. Counsel submits that the height of the petitioner is 168 cms as this fact is itself clear from the identity card issued by the respondent department itself. Counsel submits that the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this petition on 04.07.2003 and operation and execution of the impugned order dated 04.06.2003 was stayed and immediately thereafter the respondents have recalled the impugned order dated 04.06.2003 vide order dated 15.07.2003 subject to decision of this writ petition. Counsel submits that when the petitioner is having the requisite height i.e. 168 cms, the impugned order dated 04.06.2003 is not sustainable in the eye of

[2023/RJJP/012052]

[CW-3872/2003]

(3 of 5)

law and the same kindly be set aside. Counsel submits that even the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range Kota has also issued a letter to the Additional Director General of Police Training, Jaipur that the impugned order dated 04.06.2003 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar going beyond its jurisdiction as Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar had no business to pass such order.

¶31

Per contra, learned State respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per Rules of 1989 a candidate is supposed to have height of 168 cms and on measuring height of the petitioner at the training centre the Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar found the height of the petitioner less i.e. 167 cms and accordingly the order impugned was passed on 04.06.2003 by which the petitioner has been rightly discharged from service. Counsel submits that under these circumstances the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

¶32

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶33

This fact is not in dispute that after selection the petitioner appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test / Physical Standard Test wherein the petitioner was medically examined and he was eligible from all corners and accordingly appointment was accorded to him vide order dated 17.11.2001 thereafter the petitioner successfully completed his two years probation period. When the petitioner was sent for training at Jhalawar his height was measured there and same was found to be 167 cms.

[2023/RJJP/012052]

[CW-3872/2003]

(4 of 5)

It is worthy to note here that there was no reason or occasion available with the training centre to remeasure the height of the petitioner when the petitioner has already been found suitable by the appointing authority, even then the height was measured and the order impugned has been passed by the respondents on 04.06.2003. It is worthy to note here that against the impugned action of the respondents the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing instant petition and an interim order was passed by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2003 and operation of the impugned order dated 04.06.2003 was stayed and on the basis of the same the respondents themselves has recalled the order dated 04.06.2003 subject to decision of this writ petition that is how the petitioner has continued on the post upon which he was appointed. In utter surprise the respondents themselves issued an identity card to the petitioner which indicates that the height of the petitioner is 168 cms. This document has been issued by no one other than the respondents themselves.

¶38

At this stage this Court found it fit to conduct the fresh physical examination of the petitioner, hence vide order dated 03.05.2023 the Superintendent of Government Medical College, Kota was directed to constitute a Medical Board to remeasure the height of the petitioner and accordingly the Medical Board of three Doctors was constituted by the Superintendent of Government Medical College, Kota who remeasured the height of the petitioner on 15.05.2023 and height of the petitioner is found to be 168 cms.

[2023/RJJP/012052]

[CW-3872/2003]

(5 of 5)

Hence from perusal of the report submitted by the Medical Board of Government Medical College, Kota, it is clear that the petitioner falls within the parameter as per Rules of 1989 and his height is 168 cms., hence the respondents have committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 04.06.2003.

¶43

In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned order dated 04.06.2003 is quashed and set aside.

¶44

The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶45

The respondents are expected to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

Report dated 15.05.2023 issued by the Medical Board, Government College, Kota is ordered to be taken on record.

¶47

In view of above observations, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶48

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶49

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶50

KuD/54

Bhanwar Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Harnarayan S/O Shri Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Prakash Sen S/O Shri Madan Lal Sen Vs the State of Rajasthan

Karamveer Singh S/O Shri Rajveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Singh S/O Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Saloni D/O Shri Kunjbihari Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharam Singh Son of Mewaram Vs State of Rajasthan