Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by action of the respondents in declaring him unfit for appointment on the post of Constable in the process of selection initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 18/1/2003 by Superintendent of Police Bhilwara.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was non suited for appointment and was declared as unfit whereas he was fully fit to be appointed on the post of Constable. Petitioner protested but he was not provided any justice. Height and chest measurement of the petitioner is in conformity with the requirement of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Police Subordinate) Service Rules, 1989. According to Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989, physical fitness could be verified only after the medical examination by the medical board to be constituted by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police. It was contended that medical fitness could have been seen only after the selection was made and the name of the candidate was included in the select list but medical fitness could not be decided by the members of the recruitment board for the purpose of shortlisting of the candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was arbitrarily excluded from the purview of consideration whereas the measurement of his height was 171.0 cm, measurement of chest deflated 81.0 cm and inflated 86.0 cm and his weight was 60.0 kg as per the certificate (Ann.3) on the basis of which, he was called for interview. Action of the respondents declaring him medically unfit is therefore arbitrary. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Munesh Kumar v. State & Ors. {SBCWP No. 2720/06 decided on 31/5/2006) which order was modified vide order dated 18/7/2006 and Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State and ors., {SBCWP No. 3548/98 decided on 20/12/2006. In the similar circumstances, the respondents were directed to get the medical fitness of the candidates verified through medical board and consider their cases afresh.
(3.) Respondents have filed reply to writ petition contending inter-alia that petitioner was not fit and there was deficit of requisite measurement of his chest.;