- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition and connected Writ Petition No. 32014 of 1996 are being disposed of by a common judg ment.
(2.) HEARD Mr. L. P. Naithani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for mandamus direct ing the respondent No. 2. Excise Commis sioner, U. P. to consider the petitioner for promotion as Excise Inspector. The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the of fice of Excise Commissioner, U. P. on 23-10-1963 through a regular competitive test held in June 1963. A photostat copy of the ap pointment letter dated 23-10-1963 is An- nexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner was confirmed as clerk on 1-4-1967. The petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk in August, 1985. The petitioner passed Inter mediate Examination in 1995 and he claimed that he is fully qualified for promo tion as Excise Inspector. He filed Writ Peti tion No. 19027 of 1989 for promotion as Excise Inspector but this writ petition was dismissed on 11-11-1993 on the ground that the petitioner does not hold the requisite educational qualification vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is pertinent to men tion that there was no observation regarding height in the judgment. Against this decision, the petitioner filed a Special Ap peal No. 14 of 1994 in which it was observed that according to the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualifica tion which is Intermediate. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it has been alleged that by notification dated 7-1-1992 the U. P. Subordinate Excise Ser vices Rules have been introduced by the U. P. Excise Department by which the pre viously existing U. P. Subordinate Service Rules, 1967 and U. P. Subordinate Service Rule, 1983 have been amended. Rule 13 (2) (ii) imposed the requirement of minimum height of 162 cm. Admittedly the petitioner's height is less than 162 cm. but the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid requirement of height of 162 cm. imposed by Rule 13 (2) (ii ).
(3.) SO far as the petitioner's educational qualification is concerned, now there is no dispute that the petitioner has done his In termediate and hence from the point of view of educational qualification, he is qualified to be appointed as Excise Inspec tor. The question which remains is as to whether Rule 13 (2) (ii) of 1992 Rules is valid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has alleged in paragraph 19 of the petition that there is no reasonable basis for fixing this minimum height of 162 cm. and this does not corelate directly or indirectly with the duties to be performed by an Excise Inspector. In paragraph 20 of the counter- affidavit it is admitted that the work and conduct of the petitioner is of good stand ard. The petitioner has the educational qualification for the post of Excise Inspec tor. The only hurdle in the path of the petitioner is his height.;