08.07.2010.
Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondent
Nos. 1 to 5.
Petitioner was a candidate, who had participated in the
process of selection for appointment to the post of constable in the
Government Reserve Police, which was conducted from 4.7.2003
to 30.7.2003. However, as the entire selection was cancelled and
the petitioner was also found ineligible for appointment on the basis
of certain enquiry conducted in the matter and report submitted
vide Annexure P/10, petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the same.
Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, points
out that initially on the basis of the enquiry report – Annexure P/10,
the entire selection was cancelled. The cancellation of the entire
selection resulted in filing of four writ petitions before this Court.
The Writ Petition Nos: 4692/2005, 2591/05, 13451/05(s) and
3690/05, were decided by a common order-dated 11.3.2008 –
Annexure P/12. It was found by a Bench of this Court that it was
only in the case of 14 persons that there was illegality in the process
of selection. In the case of other selected candidates there was no
illegality and, therefore, the Bench of this Court found that the
cancellation of the entire selection is illegal and direction was given
to appoint such persons against whom there was no irregularity. It
is common ground that writ appeals were filed and finally on the
basis of scrutiny of records in case of such candidates, where there
were no illegality, appointments have been granted. However,
2
petitioner is one of the persons amongst the 14, in whose cases
irregularities were found and appointment was not granted.
Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, points
out that the irregularity committed in the case of the petitioner
relates to Charge No.9, as indicated in the report – Annexure P/10,
and by taking me through the said charge, he points out that
initially when the measurements of the petitioner were taken, his
height was found to be 165 cms and his chest measurement was 80-
85 cms. He was granted relaxation as far as height is concerned, but
as no relaxation was granted with regard to chest measurement, he
was found ineligible for appointment. In the meanwhile, it is found
that petitioner’s mother produced certain documents dated
10.9.2003 and he was granted relaxation in chest measurement also,
but finding such relaxation to be not in accordance with law, his
selection was cancelled on the ground that it was illegal.
Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, further points
out that in the report itself the Inspector General has directed for
taking fresh chest measurement of the petitioner and thereafter
consider his case for relaxation. It is argued that without following
the aforesaid procedure, rejection of petitioner’s candidature is
illegal. On the aforesaid ground contending that there is no material
irregularity in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner could
come to know about these facts only when the enquiry report was
submitted and the facts came to his knowledge after decision of
W.P.No.4692/2005, on 11.3.2008 and after representation he has
filed this writ petition, Shri Pandey seeks for interference into the
matter.
3
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the State, has filed
reply and it is pointed out that as petitioner is one of the 14
candidates, in whose case irregularity was found, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
From the records it is clear that in the case of 14 candidates,
irregularities were found and, therefore, this Court in the earlier
round of litigation had directed for taking action in the case of other
candidates leaving aside the 14 candidates. Petitioner is one of the
14 candidates, in whose case the irregularity is committed.
However, the cause of irregularity and the effect of the same vis-à-
vis the selection of the person concerned is not adjudicated by this
Court and it is for the first time that petitioner, one of the 14
candidates, is challenging the finding of irregularity and the action
taken on the basis of the same.
That being so, in the case of the petitioner, this Court is now
required to consider as to what was the irregularity that came to the
knowledge of the authority by virtue of the enquiry report –
Annexure P/10 and if the same is of grave nature then no relief can
be granted to the petitioner. In view of the above, I propose to
examine the enquiry report, the illegality that came to the notice in
the case of the petitioner and the action to be taken on the same.
Charge No.9, in the enquiry report – Annexure P/10, pertains
to the petitioner. The said charge and the findings are in two
paragraphs. The first part i.e… the first paragraph deals with the
measurement taken and it is indicated in this part that initially when
4
petitioner’s physical measurement were taken, it was found that his
height is 165 cms and his chest measurement is 80-85 cms. It has
been observed in the report that vide circular dated 8.8.2003,
certain relaxation were granted to candidates belonging to SC and
ST community and in the case of the petitioner, the competent
authority has found him entitled for relaxation in the height.
However, no relaxation in the chest measurement is granted and,
therefore, the enquiry report indicates that the Inspector General of
Police has recommended for taking the chest measurement again
and consider if relaxation in this regard can be granted to the
petitioner.
It is common ground that in pursuance to this direction of the
Inspector General of Police, no action was taken, but subsequently
because petitioner’s mother and the petitioner himself produced
some documents showing grant of relaxation to the petitioner and
finding that these documents have come not through the Selection
Committee and they were not produced before the Committee,
doubting the veracity of the relaxation, petitioner’s case is rejected.
This finding is recorded in second paragraph of the enquiry report –
Annexure P/10.
It is, therefore, clear the Inspector General of Police had
directed for taking measurement of the petitioner again and
consider his case for relaxation and according to the petitioner
relaxation was granted, but the enquiry report was given adverse to
the petitioner and this relaxation was rejected only because the
relaxation and the papers were not routed through or placed before
the Selection Committee, but is placed directly before the authority.
5
Be that as it may, at this stage even if the second part of the finding
of the enquiry officer with regard to submission of relaxation
improperly is ignored, petitioner is entitled to consideration of his
case for relaxation after his chest measurement is taken and action
taken as per the directions of the Inspector General of Police. To
that effect, petitioner is entitled to benefit as there is no other grave
or serious irregularity pointed out in the case of the petitioner.
Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the irregularity
in the selection of the petitioner is not so grave or serious that his
candidature should be thrown out. In the light of the order passed
by the Inspector General of Police (Railway), Bhopal respondents
should take the chest measurement of the petitioner again and after
evaluating his claim for grant of relaxation, if permissible as per
rules, take a fresh decision in the matter.
Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid this petition is
allowed in part and the following directions are given:
(1) On the petitioner’s filing a certified copy of this order,
the appointing authority i.e.. the Superintendent of
Police – respondent No.5, shall undertake the exercise
of physical verification of petitioner’s height and chest
and if found eligible, take action for appointment of
the petitioner. In case the height and chest
measurement fall below the prescribed standard or
criteria, the Superintendent of Police concerned shall
examine the question of granting relaxation, decide it
in accordance to the provisions of the policies and
6circulars of the State Government, and decide the
question as to whether appointment can be granted to
the petitioner or not.
(2) The exercise as indicated hereinabove be undertaken
and a final decision communicated to the petitioner
within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order
With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed in part and
disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-
