The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 920 of 2023 Sapna Kumari Mishra, Aged about 24 years, D/o Shri Ashok Mishra, R/o Jayrampur Colliery, Near BCCL Hospital, P.O. Khas Jeenagora, Petitioner P.S.- Tisra, Dist. Dhanbad … … Versus 1. Union of India through the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India, Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 2. Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Recruitment Branch, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, East Block 07. Level-4, Sector 01, R. K. Puram, New Delhi 110066. 3. Regional Director (ER), Staff Selection Commission, 1st MSO building. 8th Floor, 234/4, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, P.O. PS and Dist. Kolkata 700020. 4. Inspector General/TS, Central Industrial Security Force (in short CISF), Headquarter, Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O., P.S. and Dist. New Delhi-110003 5. Commandant/Chairman, Dossier Scrutiny Board, CT/GD 21, CISF Unit, DSP Durgapur, Bhiringi P.O. P.S. and Dist. Durgapur 713203 6. Commandant, CISF Regional Training Centre, Arakkonam, PO & P.S-Suraksha Camp, Ranipet, Vellore-631151 … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI : Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI --- 06/08.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) /direction(s) particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to comply with the Office Order dated 11-11-2022(Annexure 1) by which the petitioner was duly selected for Constable(GD/General Duty) in CISF and she was appointed by the respondent no. 5. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Office Order dated 26-12-2022 (Annexure-2) and Office Order dated 24.01.2023 (Annexure 2/1) issued by the respondent no. 6, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to join the post of Constable(GD) in CISF and the Office Order dated 11-11-2022 (Annexure 1) for appointment of petitioner was cancelled respectively on the ground that during physical measurement by the Board of Officers, her height was measured as 155.6 Cms whereas the require minimum height is 157 Cms.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the open competitive examination 2021 for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in CISF and other forces conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and the petitioner was finally selected and the respondent no. 5 who is the appointing authority issued office order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure-1) which is the appointment letter for basic training. 4. The case of the petitioner is that suddenly the respondent no. 6 issued office order dated 24.01.2023 and subsequently issued letter dated 26.12.2022 whereby the petitioner was not allowed to join the post of constable in CISF and appointment office order dated 11.11.2022 was cancelled on the ground that during physical measurement by the Board of Officers, her height was measured as 155.6 centimeter whereas the required minimum height prescribed for Gen/EWS female candidate is 157 centimeter. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after all verification the petitioner was declared successful and therefore the impugned action is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also submitted that the impugned order has been issued by the respondent no. 6 although the appointing authority of the petitioner is respondent no. 5. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that offer of appointment was provisional and it was informed through para 2(xiii) that if there is any material evidence at a later date to prove that the candidate does not meet any criteria, which includes criteria regarding physical measurement, then the provisional appointment letter will be cancelled. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that initially the height of the petitioner was recorded as 155.6 centimeter against the minimum prescribed height of 157 centimeter; The petitioner filed appeal dated 02.06.2022 and the appellate authority remeasured the height of the petitioner and recorded as 157 centimeters; the petitioner was put through 2 second stage of recruitment process i.e. detailed medical examination on 19.09.2022 and her height was again reported as 155.6. centimeter. 8. However, after reporting at CISF RTC Arakkonam, a Board of officers was constituted vide office memorandum no. 8128 dated 18.12.2022 for reverification of physical measurement of all the candidates including the petitioner who had reported on 23.12.2022 and 28.12.2022 to join the post and the height of the petitioner was again found to be 155.6 centimeter. 9. The learned counsel has also referred to the circular dated 01.11.2013 to submit that the mismatch in height has been a regular feature and therefore a circular was issued with regard to disposal of under height and under chest cases reporting at Training Centre, and in case of any discrepancy, the matter is required to be reported to IG/TS,NISA Hyderabad for examination and measurement and if it is found to be under height/under chest, necessary action for cancellation of appointment is to be taken at IG/TS level. 10. The learned counsel has also referred to the page 11 of the counter affidavit that the finding of Board of Officers was given to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 26.12.2022 and subsequently the matter was referred to IG/TS Headquarters New Delhi for taking a final administrative decision and a direction was received from IG/Ts headquarters New Delhi. The provisional offer of appointment letter no. 697 dated 11.11.2022 issued to the petitioner has been cancelled by CISF RTC Arakkonam letter No. 450 dated 24.01.2023 due to under height and the said letter has been issued under the instruction of the appointing authority of the petitioner and it is a mere communication and it cannot be said that the appointing authority of the petitioner has not issued any letter discontinuing with the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have acted as per norms and there is a difference of height of about 1.5 centimeter. 11. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed in the present case. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that initially the height of the petitioner was found to be 155.6 centimeter and 3 on her appeal her height was measured and found to be 157 centimeters. An appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and she was to join for training. 13. When the petitioner joined for training, the petitioner along with others were again subjected to measurement and such action was taken in terms of the circular dated 01.11.2013 as contained in page 30 of the counter affidavit. It further appears that upon measurement at the place of training, the petitioner was not allowed to join to the post of constable/GD in CISF and a letter no. 8240 dated 26.12.2022 was issued to the petitioner on the same day as has been stated in the counter affidavit and then the matter was referred to IG/TS headquarter New Delhi for taking final administrative decision and the provisional offer of appointment dated 11.11.2022 issued to the petitioner was cancelled vide letter No. 450 dated 24.01.2023 due to height of the petitioner. 14. This Court finds that the action of the respondents is in terms with their circular dated 01.11.2013 and upon measurement at the training center the matter was reported to the higher authorities and the decision was ultimately taken by the appointing authority and it was simply communicated to the petitioner by the impugned order and therefore it cannot be said that the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner has been passed by incompetent authority. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that the respondents have acted as per norms which is applicable to all the persons and the measurement of the petitioner was conducted along with all other persons who had joined the training center, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order and action of the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this writ petition is dismissed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4