High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112679-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 587 of 2024 Appellant :- Ankita Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
4. We find that in this backdrop, learned Single Judge while entertaining
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner, Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for respondent no.2, U.P.Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record. 2. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred questioning the validity of the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.5586 of 2024. 3. The brief facts, which emerges from the record are that the appellant/petitioner had applied for the post of Van Daroga in response to an advertisement no.06-Exam/2022, Van Daroga Mukha Pariksha- (Preliminary Eligibility Test-2021)/06. Being fully eligible to appear in the said examination she was called to appear. Thereafter, the appellant participated in preliminary examination where she was declared successful and then she appeared in main examination where also she was declared successful. After that, she was called to face physical standard test, which was to be ensured as per Rule 13 (1) of the U.P. Subordinate Forest (Deputy Range Forest Officer and Forester) Service Rules, 2021. In view of the aforesaid rule, the height of female candidate in general category should be 150 cm., the chest circumference should be 79 cm. and expansion of the chest should be 5 cm. In the said physical standard test as her height was only measured as 149.5 cm, due to which she failed to clear the physical test and her candidature was rejected. The said action had been assailed in writ jurisdiction on the ground that as per medical certificate obtained from Community Health Center, Handia, Prayagraj and Shakuntala Multispeciality Hospital, Prayagraj wherein her height is mentioned as 150 cm, which is required in terms of the advertisement and her candidature had been rejected in an arbitrary manner without according opportunity.
Decision
the writ petition had directed for constitution of medical board at King George Medical College, Lucknow qua the actual measurement of height of the petitioner. Consequently, the medical board was constituted and the report was submitted to the learned Single Judge wherein it was found that she was below the required height. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.05.2024 had dismissed the writ petition with following observation:- "The report sought by this Court through its previous order has been submitted by King George's Medical University in a sealed cover and has been taken on record. The seal cover was opened in presence of the counsel for the parties which includes the Senior Counsel Shri C.L.Pandey representing the petitioner. The report has been signed by all the three members of the Board constituted under the directions of this Court given vide in the previous order dated 3.5.2024. The Board constituted of two Orthopedic Doctors and one Doctor from Department of General Medicine. The report submitted by the Board states that the height of the petitioner is 149.2 cm. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit which has been taken on record. In her supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has levelled allegations against the Medical Board and stated that only one Doctor was present when the height of the petitioner was being measured and the height of the petitioner was not measured by all the three doctors constituting the Board. It has also been stated that the height of the petitioner was measured by tape and not by a stadiometer which, the petitioner states, is the standard protocol to measure the height. It has also been stated in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner was forcibly made to wash her hair before measurement of her height. The allegations of the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit cannot be accepted. There is no material to support the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit. There is no reason for this Court to reject the report of the Medical Board and the King George's Medical University submitted before this Court. The report is accepted." 5. The present appeal is resisted by Sri Devesh Vikram, learned ACSC on the ground that as per relevant rules the minimum height of a female candidate must be 150 cm. The appellant-petitioner has heavily relied on the report, which she had obtained on her own accord, even though, at the time of recruitment process she was found short in height and later on, the same has also been duly confirmed by the medical board constituted in the light of directions issued by learned Single Judge. He submits that without challenge to the report given by the committee of three expert doctors no relief can be accorded to the petitioner, even before the learned Single Judge no such effort has been made. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the record. In the present matter, the bone of contention is qua the actual height of the appellant- petitioner. The entire case had been set up by the appellant-petitioner on the basis of same report, which she herself had obtained whereas during the recruitment process her height was short and, accordingly, she did not fulfill the minimum eligibility, which is fixed qua the height. The learned Single Judge to balance the equity had directed for constitution of medical board at King George Medical College, Lucknow, which had submitted its report. 7. Considering the factual situation, we find that once the expert body i.e. medical board, which was constituted in the light of directions issued by learned Single gave its opinion, the same cannot be negated without challenge to the same even though at the time of her physical test her candidature was also rejected on the ground that she was short of height. 8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we find that learned Single Judge has appreciated the record and material, as has been placed before him and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 9. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed Order Date :- 15.7.2024 S.P.