Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Sudheer Hareesh Belagali on 10 November, 2020
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO.100396 of 2015 (S-RES)
Between:
1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi,
Rep. by its Secretary.
2. The Deputy Inspector General (Pers),
Directorate General, ITBPF,
MHA/Government of India,
Block No.2, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
... Appellants
(By Shri M.B. Kanavi, Sr.CGSC)
And:
Sudheer Hareesh Belagali,
Age 34 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o.: Plot No.676, Scheme No.40,
Hanuman Nagar, III Stage,
Dist.: Belagavi.
... Respondent
(By Shri V.S. Teli, Advocate)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the writ petition order dated
16.09.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.105528/2014, produced along with this appeal.
This appeal having been heard and reserved on 13.10.2020 for
judgment and coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day,
M.I.Arun J., delivered the following:
-2-
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.105528/2014, the respondents therein have preferred this appeal.
2. The appellants invited the applications for the post of Deputy Judge/Attorney General (Deputy Commandant) as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. In response to that the respondent herein applied for the post of Deputy Judge/Attorney General (Deputy Commandant) on 16.08.2013. The petitioner attended the recruitment process held on 05.09.2013 at New Delhi. After taking the physical measurement, the second appellant herein rejected the petitioner on the ground of him being overweight.
3. The petitioner had filed W.P.No.82959/2013 (S- RES). This Court rejected the writ petition reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach CAT, Bengaluru. The petitioner approached CAT, Bengaluru in Application No.1180/2013. However, CAT, Bengaluru dismissed the application stating that it has no jurisdiction. Thereafter, -3- the respondent herein preferred W.P.No.105528/2014. The appellants herein filed their statement of objections in the writ petition and contended that the respondent herein is aged about 34 years and his height should be 176 cms and his weight should be between 62 to 76 kgs and at the time of the physical test, the weight of the petitioner was 92 kgs. Therefore, they rejected him on the ground of being overweight. However, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the eligibility conditions as per the records produced by the appellants herein show that the weight of a male for the said post should be 50 kgs and no maximum weight has been fixed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents therein have preferred this appeal.
4. It is contended by the appellants that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that as per the ITBP Recruitment Rules, 2010 as well as the Guidelines of Ministry of Home Affairs for the physical efficiency test under the tabular column prescribing the height, weight and age group categories, the respondent is -4- overweight and on the sole ground, the appellants herein have challenged the order passed in the writ petition.
5. The respondent has justified the order passed in the writ petition, contending that the order is in accordance with law.
6. Admittedly, the respondent applied for the post of Deputy Judge/Attorney General (Deputy Commandant). It is a post that involves only office work and it does not demand any extreme fitness as that of a soldier. The notification issued by the appellants to recruit a person for the post of Deputy Judge/Attorney General (Deputy Commandant), which is a Group "A", gazetted Non- Ministerial Combatized Post, prescribes the qualification and the eligibility criteria in detail.
7. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, it states that the minimum weight of the person is to be 50 kgs and it does not prescribe the maximum weight. It is not the case of the appellants that the conditions prescribed in the said notification is erroneous. Under the said -5- circumstances, they cannot have recourse to the guidelines of Ministry of Home Affairs for medical examination and state that as per the said guidelines, the maximum weight is also prescribed.
8. Further, it is noticed that as per the Indo-Tibetan boarder Police Force, the general duty cadre (Group "A" Post), the Recruitment Rules, 2010, as per Rule 9, where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reason to be recorded in writing, relax any provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of a person. Further, it is noticed that the same Rule in the schedule prescribes the minimum weight that a candidate requires is 50 kgs. It does not mention the maximum weight and it is same as that which is mentioned in the notification.
9. Further, the post to which the petitioner has applied is a non-combat post and as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Rules prescribed should have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by -6- it. Probably for the same reason, the upper limit for weight of a candidate is not prescribed in the aforementioned rules or the notification issued by the appellants.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*