P BALU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE the fact that this petition was filed in the year 1996 and notice was issued, no reply has been filed on the Court record. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Cook in Central Industrial Security Force on 12th February, 1983. In the year 1989, he was appointed as Constable. As he was short of prescribed height of 167 cms, he was granted relaxation by 2. 3 cms. According to the petitioner, his service record is good and was also considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub inspector/clerk. The height prescribed thereof is 167 cms. but the petitioner has not been granted said promotion. The order reads as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_991_MHLJ5_2009Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE above order is primarily challenged on the ground of discrimination that in the case of other similarly placed persons viz. in the case of L. R. Ramdas, r. S. Rawat, P. Armugam and D. Vasantakumari they have been given relaxation and have been appointed to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector.

(3.) THE order passed by the respondents has not given any plausible reason nor any rule has been indicated on account of which the petitioner has been denied the benefit of relaxation in his service career once the benefit has been given at the entry point. It is obvious that the person who was recruited as constable with a height of 167 cms. will obviously not grow in height after a given point of time and relaxation once given in physical standard must entitle the petitioner to receive further promotions if he was otherwise found fit.