MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has assailed the order dated 29th May, 2003 (P 2). Narration of facts as laid down in the petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Sepoy/JDO with the respondent CRPF and after undergoing the recruitment process of clearing written and physical examination, he was offered appointment to the post of Constable (GD) vide communication dated 30th January, 2003. Petitioner was offered the post in the pay scale of Rs. 3050 75 3950 80 4950. Petitioner joined the respondent on 1st February, 2003 and was posted at Moaklaghat on 14th February, 2003. Thereafter, his further medical examination was successfully conducted and he was sent for further training at Recruitment Training Centre I. While undergoing training for more than 3 1/2 months, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 29th May, 2003, whereby his offer of appointment for the post of Constable/GD in CRPF issued vide office letter dated 31st January, 2003, was cancelled. Petitioner was consequently sent back home without payment of any salary. Petitioner's father is stated to have made a representation, which has not been responded to. It has been further stated that the petitioner is fully eligible hailing from Dogra community and has been selected by passing through recruitment test.

(2.) NOTICE was issued and respondents had filed their reply, inter alia contending that the respondent CRPF has framed guidelines for recruitment of Ct/GD in CRPF and in terms thereof petitioner was wrongly selected as he was not entitled to the relaxation of 2 Cms. in height, as applicable in the cases of wards of the employees of the CRPF for the reasons that while fixing the height in Clause 3 of the guidelines, standard with regard to the height already stood relaxed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents in response has argued that since eligibility of height has already been relaxed in the cases of persons hailing from Himachal Pradesh, while prescribing the physical standards under Clause 3 of the guidelines, relaxtion under Clause 18 of the same is not permissible.