Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Kumar S/O Nafe Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 7 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1892 of 2011 Judgment reserved on : 9th February, 2012 Date of pronouncement : 7th March, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Sandeep Kumar S/o Nafe Singh, R/o H. No.844, Main Chowk, V.P.O. Pooth Khurd, Delhi-110039. Applicant ( By Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment), PHQ, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
In the appointment of the applicant on the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, the only discordant view between the parties is that whereas, the applicant would claim that his height is 1.70 meters, exactly the minimum required for appointment on the post aforesaid, the respondents would state that he is marginally short of the required height.
2. We may mention at the very outset that there has been some controversy as regards the candidature of the applicant being a departmental OBC candidate or an open category OBC candidate, but is admitted by now that the applicant appeared as an open category OBC candidate, and had in that category obtained the cut-off marks for appointment on the post under contention. There would be, thus, no need to refer to the pleadings made by the parties in that regard.
3. The facts as may be relatable to the only controversy, as mentioned above, reveal that the applicant, before he made application for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) in the recruitment held during 2009-10, was already holding the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police since 2006. It is not in dispute that the minimum height required both for the post of Constable (Exe.) and Sun Inspector (Exe.) would be 1.70 meters. The applicant, on the basis of his recruitment on the post of Constable, for which too he had to pass the medical examination, including having the requisite or minimum height for being appointed, would state that at the time when the respondents, while appointing him on the post of Constable had themselves measured him 1.70 meters, how come his height be measured lesser than that at the time of recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector. We may mention here that the respondents had, while making recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector, measured the applicant as 169.8 cms. The respondents on the other hand would state that when appointed as Constable, the height of the applicant was measured by hand-operated measurement equipment, and, therefore, there would be some chance of error in the measurement, but due to the latest technology, the measuring instruments are not only precise but are also calibrated from reputed firms to avoid any error during measurement of height. It is pleaded that the applicant was measured twice by competent boards and found to be under-height, and that there being no allegation of bias or nepotism against the board or its members, the respondents cannot be prevented from rejecting the applicant being under-height only on the plea raised by him that he was previously selected as Constable with the same height due to error.
4. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and examining the records of the case, we have come to the conclusion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant deserves another chance to test his height whether the same is 1.70 meters or less than that. It may be mentioned that the difference is marginal. Admittedly, the applicant was measured at the time when he was appointed on the post of Constable. The applicant had been appearing previously also in the recruitments on the posts of Constable and Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. It is his positive case that he was medically tested thrice for his height and was found to be 1.70 meters tall. During the course of arguments, Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel representing the applicant, has shown to us a letter dated 01.02.2012 addressed to the applicant supplying him information under the Right to Information Act, which we hereby order to be placed on records. The height of the applicant was measured in PE&MT on 30.12.2011 for the post of HC (Min.) in Delhi Police, and it is mentioned that the same was found to be 170 cms. On number of occasions, therefore, the height of the applicant measured by the respondents themselves has been found to be 170 cms., the latest being on 30.12.2011, about two months ago.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, while partly allowing this Original Application, we direct the respondents to test the height of the applicant once again, but this time let it be done by the specialist doctors and staff attached to them in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Copy of this order be sent to Director, AIIMS, New Delhi. The respondents would tie up with the authorities at AIIMS, and after fixing a date for measurement of height of the applicant, intimate him accordingly. If in the exercise as above, the height of the applicant is found to be 170 cms., he shall be given appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police. Let the exercise as ordained above be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/