NARENDER KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN off the cuff observation made by a Division Bench of this Court has resulted in a second round of litigation. The observation we have referred to was made when WP(C)No.6723/2001 was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2003. In the said writ petition the petitioner questioned his being discharged as a recruit on account of not successfully clearing the training. Upholding the petitioner being discharged, it was observed that the Court was told that the respondents were offering alternative trades for employment to failed candidates and thus it was directed that, subject to availability of a vacancy, petitioner would be entitled to be employed for an alternative trade. It may be noted that the petitioner was recruited as a constable (General duty) and was discharged inasmuch as he could not successfully clear the training as a recruit. The date on which the petitioner was discharged is 27.07.2001.

(2.) IT may be noted here that on 14.04.2001 i.e. before petitioner's writ petition was decided and even before he was discharged, realizing that he was unable to withstand the rigorous training as a recruit to induct him as a constable, the petitioner sensed his being discharged and hence had applied for being accommodated in an alternative trade, but restricted his offer to be appointed only as a constable (Cook).

(3.) IT may be noted that when the petitioner applied for being appointed as a constable (GD), the policy of recruitment in vogue stipulated height requirement being 167 cm. on 30.07.2001 a new policy came into being as per which the height requirement was stipulated as minimum 170 cm.