RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. D G OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an aspirant for the post of Sub Inspector, Police. His chest size stands in the way of his appointment. He has gone through repeated measurements but his chest size waxes and wanes according to rival versions. He claims that he is satisfying the prescribed requirement but respondents refute this.

(2.) THE case has an interesting history. Respondents invited applications for the posts of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department in 1988. The candidate were required to possess the following chest measurement: Inspiration = 32.5" Expiration = 32" Petitioner also applied. He was put to tests and claims that he was found physically fit and was allowed to complete for the outdoor test and the written test. He was finally selected but his appointment order was withheld on the plea that he was involved in some criminal cases under Sees. 452/336/147 RPC. and that he fell short of prescribed chest measurement. He filed writ petition no. 181/91 in this court which was disposed of on 29.10.1992 with the following direction:

(3.) Petitioners case is that the certificate issued by the Board of Doctors constituted by respondent no. 1 is non est as it was not authorised by Article 35 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations read with para 6.5 of the J&K Financial Code ( Vol. I) and that the order denying appointment to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. I am unable to accept the first contention for the simple reason that the selection to post of Sub -Inspector is regulated by the police Rules which prescribe a different eligibility and mode of selection for appointment to various posts in the force. Therefore, Article 35 of the Civil Service Regulations which Provides that no person may be appointed to a post in the Govt. service without the medical certificate, from a specific Medical Officer, may not be all that relevant in the matter. Some holds true about Para 6.5 of the financial court which in turn makes reference to the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Regulations. All this apart controversial certificate has been prepared by the Board of Doctors (report 2 to 5) under the orders of respondents no. 1 and in compliance to the orders passed by this court in writ petition no. 181/91. Therefore, it is too much to ask for declaring this certificate non est on the pleas taken.