NARENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was recruited on 21/10/2013 to the post of Constable (GD). Petitioner continued to discharge his duties. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board again. On 23/11/2017, the Medical Board measured the petitioner's height as 167 cm. Thereafter, respondents passed an order stating that since the height of petitioner was found to be 167 cm by the State Level Medical Board, he was declared unfit. It is further submitted that respondents themselves have mentioned that the Division Level Medical Board found the height of petitioner to be 167.5 cm and the District Medical Board found it to be 168 cm, whereas the GOP prescribes the requisite height as 167.64 cm. It is further submitted that prior to the termination of petitioner's services under Rule 22 of the M.P. Special Armed Forces Rules, 1973, no show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and the impugned order was passed straightaway by the respondents. It is further submitted that in the year 2013, the prescribed procedure was duly followed and petitioner was found fit. In such circumstances, the impugned order dtd. 23/4/2019 (Annexure P/1) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that as per Rule 22 of the SAF Rules, 1973, petitioner satisfied the required qualifications in the year 2013 at the time of his appointment. It is further submitted that in 2013, all qualifications, including the prescribed height, were duly verified and two Medical Boards found the petitioner qualified in terms of height. It is further submitted that petitioner discharged his duties for six years. Without affording any opportunity of hearing, without issuing a show-cause notice, and without following the principles of natural justice, the services of petitioner could not have been terminated by the impugned order dtd. 23/4/2019 (Annexure P/1).

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that as per the statutory provisions, a candidate for the post of Constable must possess the requisite height of 5'6", i.e., 168 centimeters. In the State and Divisional Level Medical Board examinations, the petitioner was found unfit as he did not fulfill the basic physical measurement requirement as prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1973. It is further submitted that an identical issue has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 20/3/2019 passed in W.A. No. 1866/2018 (State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sanjeev Singh) and as per the said order, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted that at the time of selection, petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Medical Board, Shivpuri, wherein his height was recorded as 168 cm. Accordingly, the appointment order was issued to petitioner on 21/10/2018 and he joined training. However, upon a complaint, petitioner was re-examined by the Divisional Medical Board, wherein his height was found to be 165.50 cm. Thereafter, on request of petitioner, he was examined by the State Medical Board, which recorded his height as 167 cm. As such, he became disqualified under Rule 22 of the said Rules, 1973, and consequently, his appointment was cancelled vide the impugned order dtd. 23/4/2019 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that since the State Medical Board found the petitioner's height to be 167 cm, he does not possess the basic qualification as required under Rule 22 of the SAF Rules, 1973. Such disqualification cannot be treated as qualification in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that an enquiry was initiated and in order to rectify the irregularities, petitioner was directed to undergo medical verification before the Divisional Medical Board. Thereafter, at the petitioner's request, he was medically examined by the State Medical Board. However, in both verification, his height was found to be less than that prescribed under Rule 22 of the said Rules, 1973. It is further submitted that as per the judgment dtd. 20/3/2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1866/2019 (The State of M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjeev Singh), there was no requirement to issue any show-cause notice or initiate departmental proceedings, as at the time of passing the impugned order, petitioner was undergoing training. It is further submitted that as per GOP No. 137/2012 dtd. 30/7/2012, in case of any discrepancy, the matter must be referred to the State Medical Board. It is further submitted that the State Medical Board re-examined the height of the petitioner on 23/11/2017. The State Medical Board, consisting of five members and one President, who are experts in their respective fields, examined the petitioner and measured his height as 167 cm, which is below the required height of 167.64 cm.