By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent no. 1 to remeasure the height of the petitioner by electronic standards in any of the Central or State Government Hospital/Dispensary. He is also challenging the order dated 24.8.2012, by which his candidature has been rejected on account of being below the specified standard of height.
Briefly stated the facts are that the selection for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Armed Police Force and Assistant Police Inspector of CISF was advertised in 2012. In the physical standard test, the requisite minimum height for male candidates is prescribed as 170 Cms. According to the petitioner when he was measured by the manual measuring machine his height came to 169 Cms., and therefore, he was disqualified as being below the requisite standard of 170 Cms.
His case further is that he got himself measured by the electronic machine in General Medical Hospital, Bhiwani, Haryana, where his height came to 170.5 Cms. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that his height should be remeasured by the electronic machine to gauge his correct height.
I have heard Sri Rishabh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.
Learned counsel for the Union of India Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava has placed a letter before the Court from the office of the Deputy Inspector General SHQ (Bareilly) I.T.B.P. Force dated 10.12.2012, wherein, it has been mentioned that the instrument used for height measurement during this recruitment was manual instrument (ISI mark), which is also dully certified from the Legal Metrology Controller, Government of U.P. Bareilly.
Sri Atul Kumar Srivastava further submits that the manual height measuring instrument has been used in this particular examination for determining the physical standard test for measuring the height of all the candidates, who appeared in the medical examination universally and in such circumstances no exception can be made in the case of the petitioner.
Sri Rishabh Agrawal submits that by declaring his height to be 169 Cms. by the manual height instrument, the petitioner has suffered a grave prejudice inasmuch as, if the result of the electronic machine has been taken into consideration his height would have been not less than 170 Cms. and he would have qualified.
The submission of the learned counsel is not convincing for the reason that where the standard of measurement of height is used commonly and universally for all the candidates, the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced, if by that standard he fails the requisite standard of height.
Even otherwise, if the petitioner wanted the measurement of height to be conducted through electronic measuring instrument, he should have raised this issue prior to holding of the physical standard test and not after the test which had already been held by manual height measuring device/instrument.
The Supreme Court in the catena of decisions has held that challenged to the rule and procedure of selection must be made prior to the holding of the selection and not after the selection. The Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043 (Om Prakash Shukla Versus Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others), in para 23 thereof, has held as follows:
" 23. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination."
Further the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1991 SC 2248 (Sardara Singh and others, etc. Versus State of Punjab and others) has held in para 8 as follows:
" 8. It is next contended that the appellants have now become over-aged and that they are 22 in all. Therefore, directions may be given to the Government to relax their age qualification and given appointments to them. We find no justification to give such a direction. Admittedly, the appellants have taken the chance for selection and they were not selected on the basis of comparative merits. Therefore, merely because appellants are carrying on the litigation, there cannot be any justification to give direction to the Government to consider their cases by relaxing the age qualification for appointment as Patwari. It is not in dispute that hundreds of candidates who could not be selected would in that event seek similar relief. Under these circumstances we do not find any cause to add to the selection and appointment of the candidates as Patwaris. The High Court, though for different reasons, has rightly dismissed the writ petitions. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
Appeals dismissed."
It has not been alleged by the petitioner that in the physical standard test, the electronic height measuring instrument was also used or has been used in any such selection. The medical certificate annexure 4 is a medical report based on the height of the petitioner, as measured by the electronic measuring device in the General Hospital, Bhiwani, Haryana. Whether this electronic instrument is also the standard prescribed instrument for measuring height in U.P. has not been stated anywhere in the writ petition. Therefore the petitioner cannot claim prejudice.
It is not the case of the petitioner that there were two methodology applied for measurement of height i.e. manual height measurement as also electronic measurement instrument. When only the manual height measurement standard has been used for measurement of height of all the candidates appearing in this selection, no exception can be made in the case of the petitioner nor can any direction be given to make an exception in the case of the petitioner to measure his height by some electronic instrument.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.10.2012 N Tiwari