HRIDAY BASUMATARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN Advertisement being Advertisement No. 2 was issued by the authority of the Border Security Force (in short, "bsf") Umpling Shillong in the State of Meghalaya in the month of August, 2001 for recruitment against the vacancies of Constable in the North Eastern States including the State of Assam, pursuant to which the petitioners offered their candidatures. The selection process was thereafter, conducted by the BSF Authority for select of candidates for appointment as Constable ( general duty) and though the petitioners were selected by the Selection Board they were not appointed on the ground of the petitioner Nos. 2,7 and 8 having not fulfilled the minimum height requirement and the petitioner Nos. 1,3,4,5 and 6 having found to be medically unfit on the ground of Hypertension/tachycardia. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them as Constable (general duty) pursuant to the selection made. This Court while admitting the writ petition for hearing passed an interim order on 06. 02. 2002 to keep 8 (eight) posts of Constable (general duty) in the State of Assam vacant.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Baruah, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/bsf Authority.

(3.) THE petitioners referring to the advertisement issued in the month of August, 2001 by the BSF Authority (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition) has submitted that the grounds on which the petitioner Nos. 2,7 and 8 were not appointed as Constable inspite of their selection is not tenable in view of the fact that their candidatures were rejected on the ground of being less than 170 cms. in height though in the advertisement it has been specifically mentioned that the height requirement in respect of the candidates belonging to the hill areas and North Eastern States is 165 cms. , which the petitioner Nos. 2,7 and 8 have admittedly fulfilled. Relating to the grounds on which the candidature of petitioner Nos. 1,3,4,5 and 6 have been rejected, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were never suffered from Hypertension or Tachycardia as alleged by the medical officer of the BSF Authority and, therefore, the rejection of their candidature on that ground cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further submits that they are even now ready and willing to have another medical examination by the BSF Authority to ascertain as to whether they are medically fit or not.