AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected as a constable in July, 1996. His appointment order was not issued. The ground for refusing issuance of such order was that there has been an old amputation of his middle finger which was taken to be a loss of part of the body, making him unfit for employment. He approached this court with this petition for a relief in the form of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take him into service. His case before the court projected the following two grounds: - 1. That the old amputation did not construe a deformity which could be termed as loss of a part of the body;

(2.) THAT one Chatter Singh also had the same disability who was taken into service. Thus the petitioner was discriminated. 2. Mr. Parihar, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently denied both the grounds. According to him the Medical Board has declared him unfit for police service and this court cannot substitute its view for that of the experts who have examined the petitioner. He has also termed the exercise of the petitioner to claim equality with Chatter Singh as one in despair and not tenable.

(3.) IT is not established that both the candidates had the same sort of deformity. On the other hand Mr. Parihar while filing the objections has vividly made it clear that in Chatter Singhs case the finding of the experts was that his deformity did not render Chatter Singh incapable of performing any police duty.