Kishan Dan vs State And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 18028 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7739/2008

Kishan Dan son of Shri Rajendra Singh Charan aged about 23

years R/o Plot No.86, Hilodi Super Market, Nandadi Phanta,

Banar Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department

of Home, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent of Police, Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Mehul Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

01/12/2021

The matter comes up for consideration of application

(02/21) preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking

preponment of the date in the matter.

With the consent of both the parties, the matter is

finally heard today itself.

(2 of 6) [CW-7739/2008]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

pursuant to the advertisement dated 7.4.2008, the

petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of

Constable. The petitioner appeared in the written

examination held on 6.7.2008 and declared successful.

Thereafter, vide letter dated 13.8.2008, the petitioner

was called for physical ability examination as well as

interview whereupon he appeared before the respondents

for the physical examination, however, during the said

physical examination, it was observed that the

petitioner's deflated chest measurement was 83 cms,

whereas his inflated chest measurement was 86 cms. The

respondents have non suited the petitioner while

referring to the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Rajasthan

Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short 'the

Rules of 1989') while holding that as the expansion of

petitioner's chest is less than 5 cms, he is not physically

fit to be appointed on the post of Constable.

Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents,

the petitioner has approached this Court while claiming

that his chest measurement was wrongly done and there

is a difference of more than 5 cms in his deflated as well

as inflated chest measurements. The petitioner has

contended that his physical examination was conducted

(3 of 6) [CW-7739/2008]

by the respondents on 3.9.2008, thereafter he got

himself examined at the Government Hospital, Nagaur on

28.9.2008 and as per the health certificate issued by the

aforesaid hospital, the deflated as well as inflated chest

measurements of the petitioner were 83 cms and 89 cms

respectively and, as such, the difference between his

deflated and inflated chest measurements was more than

5 cms, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on the

post of Constable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing

reliance on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

(Jaipur Bench) dated 1.5.2019 rendered in SBCWP

No.14017/2015 - Vikas Vs. The State of Rajasthan

and Ors. has prayed that the instant writ petition may be

allowed and the respondents be directed to appoint the

petitioner on the post of Constable pursuant to the

vacancies issued vide advertisement dated 7.4.2008.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of

the respondents, wherein the petitioner's claim has been

denied and it is reiterated that at the time of physical

examination of the petitioner on 3.9.2008, his deflated as

well as inflated chest measurements were 83 cms and 86

cms respectively, as such, his chest expansion was found

short of 2 cms against the requirement of 5 cms as

(4 of 6) [CW-7739/2008]

provided under the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Rules

of 1989.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed

reliance on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dated 4.7.2015 passed in SBCWP No.696/2015 -

Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and

Division Bench's judgment of this Court dated 1.3.2019

passed in DB Special Appeal (W) No.1883/2018 -

Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The recruitment process in which the petitioner has

appeared pertains to the year 2008. The claim of the

petitioner is that at the time of physical verification on

3.9.2008, his chest measurement was recorded

incorrectly and in support of the above contention, he has

placed on record a health certificate dated 28.9.2008

(Annex.2) issued by the Medical Jurist, Government

Hospital, Nagaur. In the said certificate, it is mentioned

that the deflated chest measurement of the petitioner is

83 cms, whereas his inflated chest measurement is 89

cms. Interestingly, in the above referred certificate,

height of the petitioner is mentioned as 174 cms,

whereas the respondents in their reply have come up

with a case that at the time of physical examination, the

(5 of 6) [CW-7739/2008]

petitioner's height was measured as 176 cms by the

Selection Board.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to

inform this Court that under whose directions, the

petitioner got himself examined by the Medical Jurist,

Government Hospital, Nagaur and which Rule permits

him to obtain the said health certificate. The action of the

respondents cannot be negated merely for the reason

that the petitioner had obtained health certificate from a

Medical Jurist of a Government Hospital certifying that

the expansion of petitioner's chest is more than 5 cms.

This Court is of the view that it cannot be a reason for

rejecting the measurement done by the Selection Board,

which includes Doctors of the police department on the

day of petitioner's physical examination.

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner in Vikas's case (supra) is distinguishable

from the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid

case the matter was not with regard to measurement of

chest and the same was in respect of measurement of

height of the candidate. Apart from that, the selection

process for which the petitioner had applied is of the year

2008, which has already been completed and the

selected persons have been accorded appointment and

(6 of 6) [CW-7739/2008]

further the petitioner has not made any person as party

respondent, who might have been selected as a last

candidate in the petitioner's category.

In such circumstances, I do not find any force in this

writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order

as to costs.

The application (02/21) as well as all other pending

applications are disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

12 - ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)