PARSHOTAM KHULLAR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Matriculate and has also passed 3- Year Diploma in Electronics. The Director, Police (Telecommunications), Punjab, Chandigarh, on 15.3.1989 issued an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors (Technicians). As per the said advertisement, the qualification prescribed for Assistant Sub Inspectors (Technicians) was Matriculation and 3 years' Diploma in Electronics. Since the petitioner has the requisite qualification, he applied for being selected as Assistant Sub Inspector (Technician) in pursuance of the said advertisement. On 10.4.1989, physical test was conducted and the petitioner was declared physically fit. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to appear for physical efficiency test which he also successfully qualified. Then, the petitioner appeared in the written test and qualified the same. After the written test, a Committee was constituted. of D.I.G. Police Telecommunications), Punjab Director, Police Telecommunications), Punjab and one Senior Superintendent of Police, for holding interviews. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 26.4.1989. After the interviews, a merit list of 16 candidates was prepared and the petitioner was shown at No. 4 in the merit list.

(2.) On 4.5.1989 the respondent No. 3 asked the Chief Medical Officer, Hoshiarpur to medically examine the petitioner. The Chief Medical Officer examined the petitioner on 9.5.1989 and declared him fit. Again on 28.6.1989, respondent No. 3 asked Civil Surgeon-Chief Medical Officer, Hoshiarpur, that on 4.5.1989 when the petitioner was examined and was declared medically fit with Myopia 2.5 DSP, but as per police rule 12.16, a candidate for employment in Police department should have eye vision 6/6 without glasses. In view of this the Civil Surgeon was requested to intimate whether the vision of the candidate is as per the rules quoted or otherwise. He was also required to intimate whether the defect of Myopia makes a candidate fit for police service or not.

(3.) At the time of motion hearing, on 4.5.1990, the Division Bench observed that as in para 7 of the written statement the respondents have made an averment that the case of the petitioner is being referred to the Postgraduate Institute, Chandigarh, for medical examination to ascertain the suitability of the petitioner for appointment, the petitioner was directed to get himself medically examined and the result of the examination was directed to be placed before the Court on 30.5.1990. On 30.5.1990, reports of the P.G.I. as well as Director, Health and Family Welfare regarding medical examination of the petitioner were placed on record. The report of the P.G.I. is to the following; effect :-