Rajwant Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking absorption as constable w.e.f. 02.07.1994 and arrears @ 18% from due date.

On 20.08.2024, the petition was disposed of by following order:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition was filed in the year 2000 and 24 years have passed and he is not in touch with the petitioner and does not know whether the petitioner intend to pursue the present petition. Hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having not been pressed any further with liberty to revive in case the petitioner intends to pursue the present petition.

Ordered accordingly

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.”

On the application, the petition was restored.

On 16.03.2004, the following order was passed by this Court:

“Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per order of appointment of Kulwinder Kaur, (copy Annexure R-III annexed with the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4), her height was 5-2" i.e. below the prescribed height of 5'-3". Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner's claim has been rejected on the plea that she does not fulfil the prescribed standard of height and as the respondents have admittedly relaxed the condition with respect to height qua Kulwinder Kaur, the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relaxation.

Respondent No.4 is directed to file a fresh affidavit, explaining as to how Kulwinder Kaur has been enlisted as a Constable, despite the fact that she does not fulfil the mandatory prescribed standard of height.

Adjourned to 26.3.2004.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the respondent could grant height relaxation as was granted to similarly situated SPO. The denial of height relaxation caused irreparable loss to her. The discrimination was writ large. On the similar issue, LPA-1529-2016 is pending for 17.03.2026.

A period of more than twenty years from the date of alleged selection has passed away. The petitioner could not be selected as Constable due to lack of standard height. She is claiming that height relaxation was given to another SPO, however, denied to her. At this belated stage, the respondent cannot be directed to grant height relaxation and issue her appointment letter. In any case, grant of age or height relaxation is discretionary power. The petitioner was working as SPO and respondent considered SPOs for the post of Constable. The petitioner did not comply with prescribed parameters, thus, respondent was within its jurisdiction to deny her claim for the post of Constable. Mere pendency of LPA cannot be ground to keep the petition in abeyance especially when it is pending since 2000.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.