RAVI KUMAR KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this bunch of writ petitions, petitioners are questioning the validity of decision taken by Commandant, 12th Bn. P.A.C. Fatehpur, in exercise of authority vested under Rule 8 (2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, dispensing with the services of petitioners by holding that their services are not required, as they do not fulfill the requisite minimum eligibility criteria.

(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to instant writ petition, are that in the year 2004 recruitment was notified for recruiting constables in Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.) at 20th Bn. P.A.C. Azamgarh. Petitioners applied for consideration of their candidature after going through various examinations, which comprised of physical test, written examination and interview. Petitioners participated in examination at each stage of selection and ultimately medical examination of petitioners was also conducted. Petitioners have contended that they succeeded at each stage of selection and necessary communication was sent to them by Commandant 20th Bn P.A.C., Azamgarh, asking them to report at 20th Bn P.A.C., Azamgarh. Petitioners submit that pursuant to said directive, they reported at 20th Bn P.A.C., Azamgarh on 1-12-2004, and upon such reporting, petitioners were directed for undergoing training for a period of one month at 12th Bn. P.A.C. Fatehpur. On completion of one month's training, petitioners were sent for further training at 35th Bn. P.A.C. Lucknow. Petitioners have contended that during course of training also, they were subjected to medical examination; and after successfully completing training, petitioners were posted at 12th Bn. P.A.C. Fatehpur. Petitioners have contended that during continuance of their training at repeated regular interval, they had been subjected to medical check up. On 19-7- 2007, petitioners were required to undergo fresh medical examination. On the aforesaid date, petitioners appeared before the Medical Board, and thereafter, order impugned has been passed, dispensing with the services of the petitioners. At this juncture present writ petitions have been filed. On presentation of writ petition, learned standing Counsel was asked to produce relevant record, on the basis of which impugned decision in question has been taken. On record being produced, reason of petitioners being ineligible has been disclosed as follows : Sl. No. Writ Petition No. Petitioner's name Cause 1. 36283 of 2007 Ravi Kumar Kaushal Colour Vision 2. 36295 of 2007 Firoz Ahmad Colour Vision

(3.) 36290 of 2007 Amit Kumar Bilateral flat foot