RAJU SHIVAJI CHAVAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned communication dated 29-10-2005 bearing No. CHQ : WP-10262 : 05 : 1 : STI (Discp) vide Annexure-A. has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondents to examine the petitioner by an independent medical expert or anybody or authority not under the control or authority of third respondent.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that; petitioner earlier had filed a Writ Petition before this court in No. 9195/2005 assailing the correctness of the discharge order dated 6-3-2004 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A therein. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 9th August 2005. This Court has allowed the said writ petition in part and a direction was issued to third respondent therein to subject the petitioner to a medical test by an expert or group of experts so as to ascertain the correct height of the petitioner and if it is found that the height of the petitioner qualifies him for being considered for the post in the lower trade, he shall be reinstated into service afresh. After disposal of the said writ petition, in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the matter has been referred to Experts Committee of the third respondent, consisting of Presiding Officer and other three members i. e. the Board of Officers comprised of the Senior Officer and a medical Officer to ascertain the exact height of the petitioner. They have examined and carried out the measurement (height) of the petitioner and found the height of the petitioner as 164 Cms. , at 11. 00 hours on 24-10-2005. In the light of the report submitted by experts Committee, third respondent has issued the impugned communication dated 29th october 2005 vide Annexure-A. informing the petitioner that "board of Officers carried out his height measurement in the presence of his advocate and Board found his height to be 164 Cms i. e. below the permissible height for candidates hailing from Maharashtra for enrolment into the lower trade". Being aggrieved by the impugned communication vide Annexure-A as referred above and seeking appropriate relief, petitioner felt necessitated to present this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents.