Sanjay Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission & ORS

$~19 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11047/2015 SANJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. H.P. Chakravotri and Mr.

P.Sekhar, Advocates versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Ripu Dhaman Bhardwaj, CGSC, with Mr. Satya Ranjan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

O R D E R

% 13.01.2016 1.

The present petition has been filed praying inter alia for issuance of direction to the respondents to quash the result of PET dated 9.9.2015 and for issuance of directions to the respondents to get the petitioner examined by an independent agency to establish his height. In view of the controversy raised with regard to the petitioner's height, which was found to be 169.3 centimeters by the Medical Board of the respondents as against the stipulated height requirement of a minimum of 170 centimeters, the petitioner was declared ineligible.

2.

On an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority, it was noticed that the petitioner's height was not 169.3 W.P.(C) 11047/2015

centimeters, but 169.2 centimeters. On 30.11.2015, so as to verify the petitioner's exact height, he was directed to visit the Army Research and Referral Hospital and the hospital was directed to submit a report.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents hands over the report forwarded by the Army Research and Referral Hospital in a sealed cover, which has been opened. A perusal of the said report reveals that the Board constituted by the Hospital has opined that the petitioner's height is 169.6 centimeters, which falls short by 0.40 centimeters of the minimum height requirement, as stipulated by the respondent.

4.

While taking on record the said report, the present petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is found to be ineligible for the post of Sub-Inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), Delhi Police, due to falling short of the stipulated height requirement fixed by the respondents. 5.

No orders as to costs.

HIMA KOHLI, J R.K. GAUBA, J JANUARY 13, 2016 s W.P.(C) 11047/2015