SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV RAMASHANKER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It transpires that the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Constable in the i Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner applied and qualified in the written examination but was declared medically unfit by the doctors on 14.2.2004 on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from a gross squint in the right eye and also on account of hypertension. The petitioner applied for a review of his medical examination. The petitioner was sent to Rampur where the doctors re-examined him on 1.6.2004 and declared him to be fit for joining the force, Based on this re-examination, the petitioner was given an :appointment on a temporary basis by an order dated 5.8.2004, It transpires that a compliant was made to the inspector General staling therein that the petitioner was selected inspite of being declared medically unfit On the basis of this complaint, the Inspector General directed fee authorities to hold a medical re-examination of the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was sent to the base Hospital, New Delhi where he was examined by a panel of doctors who certified that the petitioner was suffering from divergent squint in the right bye and was also suffering from hypertension. Based on this report, the appointing authority issued an order dated -8,1.2005 terminating the services of the petitioner exetdsmg the powers under the proviso to Sub Rule(l) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services .(Temporary Service) Rules, :1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965). Aggrieved. by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order of termination and for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to continue as a member of the Central Reserve Police Force.

(2.) Sri Yogesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Impugned order of termination had been issued by a person who had no authority in law. The learned counsel submitted hat as per Rule 7(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force rules 1955, he appointing authority was the Commadant, where the order of terminiation had been 'issued by the Additional Depty Inspector General ,of Police who had no auhority to issue the Order of termination. The learned. counsel for the petitioner; farther submitted that assuming without admiting, that the order passed, by the Additional D.I.G. was Valid and that he was duly authorised to issue an order, nonetheless, the order of termination. was issued under the proviso to Sub Rule (i) of Rule 5.bf the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which was .not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as, he was appointed and enlisted in .service under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with the Centeal Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the Rules of 1965 had wrongly been invoked in the present case The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted; that even otherwise one month's notice as contemplated under Rule 5 had not been given and therefore, the order of termination was illegal and .liable to. be quashed to support of his conteition, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a .dectision of the Supreme Court in Prabhudayal Birari v. M.P. Rajya Nagrik Aapurti Nigam Ltd AIR2000 SC 3058 , 2000 (5 )ALT29 (SC ), [2000 (87 )FLR4 ], JT2000 (9 )SC 373 , (2000 )II LLJ1105 SC , 2000 (6 )SCALE85 , (2000 )7 SCC502 , in which it was held where one month's notice was 'not given the order of termination was invalid, being against the order of appointment The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Rules 10 -and 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, a candidate, who was recruited in the force must conform to certain standards as laid down in Rule 11, namely, that the candidate must have the minimum height, chest, age etc., as prescribed therein and therefore, the .petitioner could only be removed if his enlistment not in accordance with the enlistment standards as prescribed in 11. The learned counsel submitted that the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of being medically unfit. This medical ground was not mentioned in Rule 11 and, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on a medical ground.

(3.) On the otherhand, Sri P.N.Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Additional Deputy Inspector, General was the appointing authority and was competent to issue the order of termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner1 further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and: the conditions mentioned in the order of appointment clearly indicated that the Central Civil Services Temporary Service Rules, 1.965 would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was re-examined by a panel of three doctors at the base Hospital in New Delhi where it was confirmed. that the petitioner was suffering from a divergent .squint in the right-eye and that he was also suffering from hypertension. Since the petitioner was found to be medically unfit, the authority rightly: invoked the provision of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965.'