Delhi High Court

Surender Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 January, 2012

Author: Anil Kumar

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           WP(C) No.6150/2011

%                       Date of Decision: 06.01.2012

Surender Pratap Singh                                     .... Petitioner

                     Through Mr. L.B. Rai, Advocate


                                Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                  .... Respondents

                     Through Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA


ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents

denying the admission of the petitioner to the training for joining the

CISF and has sought directions to the respondents to allow the

petitioner to join the training in the CISF Organization for the post of

Sub-Inspector.

2. The brief facts to comprehend the controversy are that the

Staff Selection Commission, respondent No. 4 had invited

applications on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for recruitment to

the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force.

3. The eligibility conditions for the recruitment were that the

candidate had to qualify the written test as well as the Physical

Standard Test. The petitioner asserted that he qualified all the

eligibility conditions and that his application was duly accepted and

acknowledged by the respondents and he was allocated a specific

index/roll number as well.

4. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and had

qualified the written examination. Thereafter, the petitioner was

called for the Physical Standard Test. As per the conditions laid

down by the respondents, the SC candidates were required to have a

minimum height of 170cms and the minimum measurement of the

chest was 80cms. (unexpanded) and a minimum of 85cms.,when

expanded.

5. Though the petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste (SC) and

he had applied under the SC category but he was considered in the

General Category as he had scored higher marks in the written test.

The petitioner was intimated, by communication dated 1st July,

2010, that he had been declared provisionally qualified for the

eligibility test, physical endurance test and medical examination on

the basis of his performance in Tier-I (OMR) of the said examination.

6. The said examination also stipulated that the candidature of

the petitioner was purely provisional subject to the petitioner

fulfilling all the conditions as laid down in the notice of examination

and if at any stage, it would be found that he does not fulfill any of

the eligibility conditions as per the notice of examination, his

candidature would be cancelled.

7. According to the petitioner, the PET (Physical Endurance Test)

result of the petitioner dated 18th August, 2010 disclosed that he had

qualified the physical standards. In the medical examination, initially

the petitioner was declared medically unfit as his weight was 84 KGs.

However, he was given an opportunity to lose his weight to bring it

within the acceptable parameters. In the review Medical Examination

his weight was found to be 64 KGs and he was declared fit.

8. According to the petitioner, after getting selected by the SSC,

he was appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector in the pay scale of

Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4200/- in pay band 2 and he

was also issued an appointment letter dated 22nd June, 2011. The

petitioner was directed to report to the Director, National Industrial

Security Academy Headquarter, Hyderabad for basic training from 1st

August, 2011. The said letter dated 22nd June, 2011, however,

indicated that the appointment of the petitioner was provisional. The

petitioner further contended that he had to join the National

Industrial Security Academy, Hyderabad on 22nd June, 2011

however, on the said date he was not allowed to join because of

unnecessary queries and objections. At that time, another objection

was also raised, that the height of the petitioner is less than the

prescribed height of 170 cms. As the height of the petitioner was not

found as per the minimum standards laid down, the petitioner was

not allowed to join the training course entailing filing of the present

writ petition by the petitioner.

9. In reply to the show cause notice issued to the respondents, a

reply dated 22nd October, 2011 was filed. Along with the reply, a

verification document pertaining to the petitioner was also filed

disclosing that the physical measurements were taken and as per his

dossier, his height was 170 cms., however, the height as measured

in NISA was found to be 169 cms. On the form in which the height

was measured as 169 cms., the petitioner also made an endorsement

that he was satisfied regarding the measurement of his height. The

respondents also produced the record dated 20th August, 2010 of the

Medical Examination of the petitioner disclosing his height to be

169cms.

10. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 5th December,

2011. As the height of the petitioner could not change and on

account of different heights disclosed in the documents filed with the

petition, the petitioner agreed to get his height measured by an

independent authority. On 5th December, 2011, this Court,

therefore, passed the following order:-

" The petitioner has sought a direction to respondent nos. 1 to 3, more particularly to Respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to join the training being conducted at the Institute, National Industrial Security Academy, Hyderabad immediately. The petitioner has not been allowed to join the training on the ground that he does not meet the minimum eligibility criteria of height of 170 cm. According to respondents the height of the petitioner is 169 cms.

The Respondents have produced the physical measurements of the petitioner disclosing the measurement as per his dossier and as per measurement in NISA. The physical measurements were taken on 28th July, 2011 and his height was measured as 169 cms.. The physical measurement form has an endorsement by the petitioner that he is satisfied with his height measurement and the endorsement is duly signed by him. The height of the petitioner has also been shown as 170 cms taken at the time of the Physical Endurance Test (PET) conducted by the respondents on the same date i.e., 28th July, 2011.

A summary of medical examination has also been produced. Medical examination conducted on

20th August, 2010 shows him unfit only on account of obesity due to overweight and his weight has been shown as 84 Kgs, however, he has not been shown as ineligible on account of height. In the column of review medical examination in summery of Medical Examination, the petitioner has been shown as `Fit'. In the form of summary Medical examination on the top, however, there is another endorsement stipulating height of the petitioner as 169 cms.

The result of review medical examination has also been produced (For Unfit Candidates) which stipulates reason for medical unfitness as `overweight:84 Kgs' and after review medical examination it has been shown as 65 Kgs (56-68 kgs.) and the final opinion given as `FIT'. In the said form it has not been stated by the respondents that the petitioner is unfit on account of not having height of 170 cms.

The height of a person cannot change in few days at the age of petitioner. The respondents have given different height of petitioner in different physical examination conducted on different dates.

In view of the conflicting reports about the height of the petitioner and considering the present facts and circumstances of the case and in order to narrow down the conflicting pleas raised by the parties, it will be appropriate to constitute an independent `Medical board' for measurement of the height of the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner has stated that the measurement carried out by and independent `Medical Board' in terms of this order, will be binding on the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, it is expected that even the respondents would not have any objection to measurement of height of the petitioner by an independent `Medical Board' as the respondents had measured on different dates different height of the petitioner.

Consequently, we direct the Registrar of the Military Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi to constitute one man Medical Board to get the height of the petitioner measured, by appointing any reasonably senior person for the purpose.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Registrar of Military Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi, on 9th December, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The measurement be got done on the same day at such time as may be convenient to the `Medical Board' appointed by the Registrar.

The report of the `Medical Board' constituted by the Registrar of Military Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi regarding the height of the petitioner, be sent to this Court under a sealed cover before the next date of hearing i.e 19th December, 2011.

Copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Registrar of Military Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi. Copies of the order be also given Dasti to the parties under the signatures of the Court Master of this Court.

List on 19th December, 2011."

11. Pursuant to the directions, given by this Court to the Registrar

of Military Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., to measure the height of the

petitioner, the petitioner appeared at the Military Base Hospital,

Delhi Cantt. on 9th December, 2011. A one Man Medical Board

measured the height of the petitioner and it was found to be 169cms.

A report dated 9th December, 2011 by Col. Harbans Lal, Presiding

Officer was produced in the Court on 19th December, 2011.

12. While passing the order dated 5th December, 2011, directing the

Registrar of Military Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt., to measure the

height of the petitioner, it was categorically accepted by the petitioner

that the measurement carried out by the independent Medical Board