Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANCHAL KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chanchal Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 6873 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 7358 (23 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6873 of 2006

Chanchal Kumar Upadhyaya

Versus

Union of India and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court contending therein that pursuant to advertisement dated 24.08.2005, he had applied for consideration of his claim in the vacancy of 'Biggular' in CRPF. Petitioner has contended that he passed physical test as well as written examination, then he was called for medical test, which was held on 03.11.2005. Petitioner has contended that he took medical test, wherein he was declared medically unfit on the ground of defective distant vision. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he got himself medically checked up at T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, and the report was provided that there was no infirmity in his eyes. Petitioner has contended that he obtained requisite certificate, and requested the authorities  to reconsider his claim. Petitioner has contended that thereafter his claim was not accepted on the ground that he had not made application on prescribed proforma. At this juncture, petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court, whereupon this Court passed following order:

     "Sri K.C. Sinha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. He prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit may be filed within  a week thereafter.

      List on 06.03.2006.

    In the meantime, the operation of the order dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Additional Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserved Police Force,  Allahabad (respondent No. 3) shall remain stayed and the respondents shall permit re-medical examination of the petitioner along with other candidates provisionally. Such re-medical examination will be subject to the final orders to be passed in the present writ petition."  

Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been contended that claim of petitioner for re-medical examination was rightly rejected, however, in compliance of the Court's order dated 02.02.2006, petitioner has been medically re-examined and declared fit. However, specific averment has been made that in the merit list, petitioner cannot be enlisted, as his candidature does not find place as per merit.  

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the said  counter affidavit, and therein, it has been contended that medical examination is conducted only of those candidates, who are found in merit resultantly in physical as well as written examinations. It has been further contended that, as each and every pre-requisite formalities have been fulfilled, relief should be accorded.

On the matter being taken up, serious dispute was raised as to whether petitioner's name figured in merit list or not, as such original record has been summoned. The record in question reveals that the last candidate from petitioner's category i.e. general category, who has been selected for the post of 'Biggular'  has obtained 61 marks and the last candidate from the general category of 'ex-servicemen' has obtained 60 marks. Entire list of the successful candidates, which has been produced, contains name of 83 incumbents and marks of each and every  candidate is higher to the marks obtained by the petitioner. Marks of petitioner have been perused, which after clubbing under each head comes down to 58. Thus, on the basis of record, this position is clear that name of petitioner does not fall in merit to be selected.

Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on Rules 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The said Rules will not at all help the petitioner, inasmuch as said Rule 10 deals with recruitment, and provides that a candidate for enlistment must conform to the minimum standard prescribed. Rule 11 deals with and enlistment of standards. Rule 12 deals with Health Certificate and Rule 13 deals with recruiting roll. Here, petitioner has not been found fit in merit, and merely because he has been medically examined, that does not conclusively establish that he has to be  placed in the merit list. Entire record reveals much about the petitioner as to why petitioner has not been selected. There is no scope of interference. Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.

23.04.2007

SRY      

 

 

 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.