Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ex. Hav. Radha Krishan vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 2 June, 2020
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1408 of 2020.
.
Date of decision: 02.06.2020.
Ex. Hav. Radha Krishan .....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others
.....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate,
through video conferencing.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
General with Mr. Ranjan
Sharma, Mr. Vinod Thakur
and Mr. Vikas Rathore,
Additional Advocate
Generals, through video
conferencing.
COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman, who joined as Sepoy in 174 Enquiry Regiment (TA) in the year 1997 and superannuated on 31.01.2017 as Havildar. The petitioner 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2020 20:21:13 :::HCHP 2 applied for the post of constable under the category of Ex-Servicemen for District Chamba. The petitioner was .
selected and thereafter appointment was required to be given by the respondents, but during such course, it was found that the petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum requirement/criteria for height as was mentioned in the recruitment notice, thus, compelling the petitioner to file the instant petition for grant of the following relief:
"That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents to give appointment letter to the petitioner and he be allowed for training with other candidates with his seniority and eligibility as recommended by respondent No.3."
2. Noticeably, it was not the petitioner alone, but there has been as many as four other candidates, who were not found to be fulfilling the criteria for height as given in the recruitment notice, who had approached this Court for redressal of their grievances.
3. All those petitions were taken up together for consideration on 05.05.2020 and after hearing the parties the Court directed constitution of a Medical Board to measure the height of each of the petitioners. The Board ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2020 20:21:13 :::HCHP 3 found all the candidates (petitioners therein) to be above required height and accordingly the writ petitions filed by .
those candidates came to be allowed vide judgment dated 27.05.2020 and since the petitioner was found to be ineligible, his case was delinked.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. r
5. As observed above, the petitioner is an Ex-
serviceman, who rendered nearly 20 years of service in the Army. In the records of the Armed Forces, the height of the petitioner has been shown to be 163 Cms in the Discharge Book, whereas, the required height is 162.56 Cms.
6. Process of recruitment in the Armed Forces vis-a-vis in other Forces is more stringent than any other services and we have no reason to doubt that the height reflected in the records of the petitioner is not his actual height or else he would not have been permitted to continue in service for nearly two decades in the Armed Forces.
6. That apart, even at the time of his selection, the petitioner has been found to be meeting the height ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2020 20:21:13 :::HCHP 4 requirement and it is only when he appeared in Junga that his height has been found to be 161 Cms as against the .
requirement of 162.56 Cms. Further, what is more intriguing is that the Medical Board that has examined the petitioner has reported his height to be 162.1 Cms i.e. variation of 1.1 Cm.
7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to conclude that it is on account of human error that there is variation in the height of the petitioner conducted by different authorities from time to time. Our opinion is further supported and strengthened by the fact that the counter-parts of the petitioner, who had approached this Court, were subsequently found to be fulfilling the eligibility criteria of height.
8. In addition thereto, we cannot ignore the Discharge Book of the petitioner wherein his height is mentioned as 163 Cms as it is an official book entry made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, carries a probative evidentiary value.
9. Lastly and more importantly, casting a doubt on the entries in the Discharge Book of the petitioner, at this stage, would itself amount to casting a doubt on the entry ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2020 20:21:13 :::HCHP 5 of the petitioner in the Armed Forces which obviously we are not inclined to accept.
.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give appointment letter to the petitioner and send him for training forthwith. Since the petitioner has suffered for no fault on his part, therefore, he shall be entitled to be treated at par with the Constables, who have already been r sent for training and shall accordingly be assigned his respective place in the seniority list. In addition thereto, the petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that this case shall not be treated and cited as a precedent in future.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 2nd June, 2020.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2020 20:21:13 :::HCHP