Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 3 Others vs Lav Kumar Saroj And Another on 23 November, 2020
Bench: Govind Mathur, Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 639 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Lav Kumar Saroj And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha Hon'ble Govind Mathur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and Sri Irfan Ahmad, Advocate for the respondent-petitioner.
The respondent-petitioner as per the Advertisement No.P.R.P.B.-I-I(138)/2018 had appeared in the written examination and thereafter had appeared for the physical standard verification and was found to be lesser than 168 centimeters in height. However, since he was confident that he was above 168 centimeters in height and that a wrong measurement had been done, he filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.1680 of 2020 (Dharmendra Singh Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein the following order was passed on 3.2.2020 :-
"Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
In the present petition, similar controversy as in Writ A No.1375 of 2020 arises. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the height of the petitioner was above the prescribed height limit of 168 centimeters, however, he has been denied only on erroneous computation of the height of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has certificates issued by the Medical Authorities to establish that his height is above the prescribed limit of 168 centimeters.
In view of the contrary reports, I deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall appear along with certified copy of this order before the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar on 17.02.2020. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost with Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar, the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar is directed to constitute a Medical Board constituting of three Doctors of the level of Professor and Associate Professor available at the local District Hospital. The C.M.O. shall also inform the S.S.P. of the District, who shall depute an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 17.02.2020. The petitioner shall also produce materials in support of his identity before the Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 17.02.2020 and he would be medically examined with regard to his height by the Board of three doctors. The report signed by the Chairman of the Board would be sent through the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahar before this Court on or before 26.2.2020. This report would constitute the basis for the Court to determine as to whether the report of the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board is liable to be questioned or not?
Post this matter in the additional cause list on 26.2.2020 before the appropriate Court.
The matter shall not be treated as tied-up or part heard to this Court."
Thereafter, on 6.3.2020, the result of the re-measurement, as per the order dated 3.2.2020, was sent to the Court and it was found that the petitioner was above 168 centimeters in height. The writ petition on the basis of the communication was allowed.
The order dated 3.2.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench by which the writ petition being Writ-A No.1680 of 2020 was allowed, was challenged by means of the instant Special Appeal and it has been argued that the learned Single Bench exceeded its jurisdiction when it directed the Board to re-measure the petitioner's height at Prayagraj. It has also been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Manish Goyal assisted by Ms. Akanksha Sharma, Advocate that when an Act provides for the measurement after the written examination only once then the Court could not have got re-measurement done. He further submitted that when a procedure has been prescribed to do a particular thing in a particular manner, then there could be no deviation.
Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner, however, submitted that when now the measurement had been done and it had been found that the petitioner was above 168 centimeters in height then no interference was warranted. He further argued that the written examination, the physical verification and also the second physical verification were all done in Prayagraj and, therefore, no interference was warranted.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the records, this Court is of the view that even though there was nothing wrong in the re-measurement with regard to the height of the petitioner as it cleared the doubt which was in the mind of the candidate but that doubt could always have been cleared by repeating the measurement.
We have held that the second physical verification, if was done outside the district where the earlier physical verification was done, then it was wrong. However, if it is done in the same city, then there was nothing wrong in it.
In the instant case, the first verification was done at Prayagraj and the second verification was also done at Prayagraj. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.11.2020 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)