Parminder Singh Kalra vs State of Punjab and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable as he has wrongly been given 13 marks for the height whereas he is entitled to 14 marks as his height is 5'' 10" as per the stand of the respondents. Petitioner, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents, applied for the post of Constable under the general category. As per the criteria laid down by the respondents, petitioner was granted 13 marks for the educational qualifications, 13 marks for the height and 2 marks for the interview and the total came to 28 marks.

Petitioner submitted a representation claiming 14 marks for height as per his entitlement. When no decision was taken, petitioner preferred CWP No. 1246 of 2012 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.1.2012 issuing directions to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2011 bypassing a speaking order within a period of two months.

In compliance with the said order, order dated 10.3.2012 (Annexure P-10) has been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has been rightly granted 13 marks for height and his total being 28, he is not entitled to appointment as the last selected candidate has obtained 28.75 marks. This order has been challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein the stand as taken in the order impugned has been reiterated.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the criteria has been laid down by the respondents regarding height for selection of the candidates. A candidate having more than 5'' 10" and upto 5'' 11" would be entitled to 14 marks. Since the height of the petitioner is 5'' 10 3/4", he is entitled to 14 marks whereas he has been granted 13 marks. Accordingly, he contends that the petitioner with the getting of 14 marks, would get total of 29 marks which would be higher than 28.75 marks entitling him to selection and appointment.

Counsel for the respondents has made an effort to scuttle the argument as has been raised by the petitioner by asserting that the claim of the petitioner would fall within 5'' 10" and 5'' 11" for which 13 marks have been granted and, therefore, states that the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

The relevant criteria as far as the grant of marks for the height is concerned is reproduced here-in-below:--

A perusal of the above would show that a person with height of 5'' 10" upto 5'' 11" would be entitled to 14 marks as the said column mentions upto and included 5'' 11". Below that, it is mentioned upto and included 5'' and 10" for which there are 13 marks. Since the petitioner is having the height of 5'' and 10 ", he would fall in the category of candidates who would be entitled to 14 marks. Therefore, 13 marks assigned to the petitioner by the Selection Committee cannot sustain.

Petitioner is held entitled to the grant of 14 marks on the basis of his height. With the grant of one additional mark, petitioner would obtain 29 marks, which would be higher than the last selected candidate who has obtained 28.75 marks. Petitioner having scored more marks than the last selected candidate is entitled to be selected and appointed to the post of Constable. In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed; direction is issued to the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.