Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038903-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:038903-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(108) LPA-712-2023
Decided on : 19.03.2024
Sunil Kumar
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr.Saurav Khurana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment passed
by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-19266-2021 decided along with the
bunch of cases on 15.03.2023 whereby it was noticed that the writ
petitioner had been called again for measurement of his height but he had
refused to let himself get re-measured and also refused to participate in the
selection process. Therefore, he was held not to be entitled to any relief.
2. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that
another opportunity be given as the appellant has paid the costs for
re-measurement.
3. We are not impressed with the said submission. The writ
petition was filed seeking directions for issuance of appointment letter to
the writ petitioner as Jail Warder as his actual height is 5' 9", as per the
result of the physical measurement held for the recruitment process of year
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038903-DB
LPA-712-2023
2011-2012 (Annexure P-11), which he had received under Right to
Information Act, 2005. It is not disputed that advertisement No.2 of 2011
(Annexure P-1) had been issued for filling up the posts of Jail Warders.
The said process had been cancelled and eventually CWP-15409-2014
titled Lachhman Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, had been
filed for quashing the process of cancellation which was allowed on
17.12.2016 (Annexure P-4) and directions were issued that merit-list be
prepared afresh considering the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement.
The writ petitioner having secured 25.88 marks was declared as not
qualified and had approached this Court in CWP-28401-2019 on the
ground that his height had been shown as 5'.8.75'' when he was measured
in the year 2017 and whereas on an earlier occasion, his height was shown
as 5'.9.25''. He thus claimed that he should have been given 26.88 marks
and had been denied a fair opportunity to be selected as a Jail Warder.
The Learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.10.2019 in the said case had
directed to get the petitioner's height re-measured by constituting an
appropriate Committee and by directing that arrangements be made for
videography while disposing off the case.
4. Apparently, at the time of re-measurement on 30.10.2019,
there was a dispute regarding the methodology of re-measurement and
since other candidates were also involved, there had been a request for
measurement through a digital machine. The said exercise was fixed for
30.01.2020. At that stage also, the candidates including the petitioner had
objected and insisted that height should be measured by constitution of an
independent committee. It is in such circumstances, he had approached
this Court on the ground that the said exercise was not done in consonance
with the earlier directions of this Court.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038903-DB
LPA-712-2023
5. In the written statement filed, specific plea had been taken
that the selection process has already been completed and even the persons
who had joined, completed the 2 years' period of probation. The
petitioner had filed the writ petition 3 ½ years after completion of the
recruitment process. It has also been mentioned that apart from the
petitioner, 6 more candidates had been called for re-measurement and they
had appeared on 30.10.2019 and 18.12.2019 and raised objections in
relation to the manual scale and that they wanted to get their heights
measured through digital machine and representation dated 30.10.2019 has
also been appended as Annexure R-1/T. A perusal of the same would go
on to show that there was a request made by Lakhwinder Singh, Muraj
Singh, Sunil Kumar and Harprit Singh that the measurement be done
through the electronic parameter machine and that they were ready to bear
the expenditure to be incurred for re-measurement of height and asked for
the next date.
6. The respondents thereafter took up the matter with the
Timing India Private Limited Company, Hyderabad for re-measurement
on 30.01.2020 on which date the petitioner refused to get his re-
measurement done through the digital machine and the details have been
mentioned in Annexure R-2/T wherein 7 candidates had gathered in the
Police Lines, Ferozepur and the scale had been arranged for measurement
on 30.01.2020 at 4 PM. A perusal of the said proceedings would go on to
show that various objections had been taken that the measurement should
be done in the morning and not in the evening. Resultantly, a speaking
order was passed on 24.04.2020 by the respondents which eventually led
to filing of the writ petition in 2021. It is in such circumstances, the
Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition while noting that the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038903-DB
LPA-712-2023
appellant himself had refused to get his height measured though specific
directions had been issued in the earlier litigation and on the basis of the
same, the appellant did not fall within the zone of consideration.
7. It is settled principle that selection process is not to go on
forever and has to come to an end. As noticed, the advertisement is of the
year 2011 and more than a decade has gone by. At this stage, we are not
inclined to accept the argument of counsel for the appellant that re-
measurement be done again because the appellant has already deposited
the amount for the same. Apparently, a fresh recruitment process has
already been completed in the year 2016 and 214 posts of Warders have
been filled and therefore, the vacancies already stand consumed. The
respondents had also taken the burden of hiring the equipments from as far
as Hyderabad to get the candidates measured and who have shown their
disinclination to the same. In such circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that the Learned Single Judge was justified in not
exercising his extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
8. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, finding no merit
in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
19.03.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
