Judgment:
LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.02.2014 LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) Harminder Singh …Appellant Versus Director General of Police and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: - Mr.M.S.Kang, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Gourav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab.
**** JASBIR SINGH,J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against order dated 14.01.2013 dismissing CWP No.13024 of 1997 filed by the appellant.
It is the case of the appellant that he is national level Boxer.
Taking note of his sports achievement, he was recommended by the Inspector General of Police, PAP for enlistment as constable on sport basis and it was further recommended that necessary relaxation be granted to him regarding physical measurement but nothing was done.
The petitioner came to this Court by filing CWP No.1421 of 1997, which was disposed of on 30.01.1997 by observing as under: “We, therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as constable on the basis of his sports qualifications and decide the same within four weeks from the Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) -2- date of submission of a certified copy of this order together with a copy of the writ petition.
We hope that the learned Director General will keep in view the fact that other similarly situated persons have been granted relaxation within the requirement of physical standard.
In case it is found that petitioner is not entitled be enlisted/appointed in the Punjab Armed Police, then a reasoned order should be communicated to the petitioner within this period of four weeks.”
.
The authorities were directed to consider his case for appointment against the post of constable in view of his sports qualification.
It was expected that the authorities will keep in view the fact that other similarly situated persons have been granted relaxation within the requirement of physical standard.
His case was rejected by passing an order on 05.08.1997.
A perusal of the order indicates that when despite issuing four letters to the appellant to appear to report at PAP Headquarters for physical trial, he failed to put an appearance, it was presumed that he was not interested in getting the post.
At that stage, this writ petition was filed.
In reply it is stated that despite writing letteRs.the appellant failed to appear for physical fitness examination/ trial.
Learned Single Judge taking note of the same has rightly come to the conclusion that once it is proved on record that the appellant has failed to put in appearance in response to the letter written by the Department his case was rightly rejected.
In that regard, it was observed as under: Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) -3- “6.
After perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has no legal or vested right for appointment.
Admittedly, as per letter dated 13.10.1993, the height of the petitioner was less by 4 ½ '' and chest was less by 2 ½'' x 2 ½'' than the required physical standard.
It was only on the basis that since the petitioner along with one other person were National/State Level BoxeRs.the Inspector of Police had recommended that necessary relaxation should be granted by the DGP.
In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the Director General was to process the case of the petitioner.
It would be clear from Annexure R-2 to R-5 that the petitioner had been asked to appear before the Addl.
D.G.P., PAP/Central Sports Officer, Punjab Police, Jalandhar Cantt.
The recommendation on behalf of the Inspector General was to be processed by the recruitment authorities and the sports certificates had to be examined to consider whether the relaxation could be granted regarding the physical fitness of the candidates.
The fact that the petitioner failed to appear has not been denied by filing replication.
The petitioner was required to undergo other trials before the authorities who had to adjudge his suitability and then only his case could have been finalised for selection to the post of Constable after relaxing the required physical norMs.but the petitioner failed to do so.
In the facts Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) -4- and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot claim that he was not required to appear before the recruitment authorities.
Once this is the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as there is no legal vested right of the petitioner which can be enforced, as such.
Even otherwise, the order was passed on 05.08.1997 and by now, a period of more than 15 years has elapsed.
At this stage, no benefit can be given to the petitioner.”
.
Mr.Kang, counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the observations of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had failed to put in appearance in response to letters written by the Department is not correct.
Reference has been made to para 8 of the writ petition, which reads thus: “8.
That thereafter the petitioner submitted the copy of the order P/8 along with copy of the writ petition on March 17, 1997 by registered post.
But instead of relaxation as directed by order P/8 (pending in the office of D.G.P.since May, 1995) respondent No.1, through Addl.
D.G.P.PAP and Central Sports Officer Punjab Police, Jalandhar Cantt asked the petitioner to appear for trial in the fiRs.week of May, 1997.
The petitioner appeared at Jalandhar and brought it to the notice of the office that he has already been recommended for appointment in Punjab Police at Bhatinda vide order P/5 dated 13.10.1993 and that now only his Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) -5- case for grant of relaxation in physical standards is required to be decided and that for that he is not required to appear for trials.
It was also pointed out that none of those recommended for appointment on sports basis has had to take trials.
Request was also made to decide the case for relaxation of any early date.
He received another letter dated 23.06.1997 in this regard.
Copy is annexed as Annexure P/9.
The petitioner again appeared before the authorities and pointed out that or deciding the case of relaxation no trials are required to be taken nor any person appointed on sports basis has had to take the trials.”
.
In this paragraph, it is vaguely stated that the appellant on being asked through ADGP PAP & Central Sports Officer Punjab Police, Jalandhar Cantt appeared at Jalandhar.
There is only one mere reference to a letter dated 23.06.1997 asking him to appear.
In reply to this paragraph, respondent has specifically stated as under: “8.
That in reply to this para it is submitted that in order to comply with the directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 30.01.1997 the Addl.
D.G.P./PAP was asked by this office memo No.9801/E-3 dated 02.05.1997 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the post of constable on sports basis.
As intimated by D.I.G./PAP vide his D.O.No.6203/CE-PC dated 16.07.1997 (Copy enclosed as annexure R- 1).The petitioner was called for trials vide his order regarding letter No.6412/SCT/CSO-97 Atul Kumar Tripathi dated 26.05.1997, 6791/CFT/CSO-97 dated 2014.03.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.401 of 2013 (O&M) -6- 10.06.1997, 7021/CFT/CSO-97 dated 20.06.1997 and 7136/CFT/CSO-97 dated 23.06.1997, but he has not reported at PAP Headquarters for subjecting himself for trials in order to judge his suitable for the post of constable which shows that he was not interest to report for trials in order to adjudge his suitability for the post of constable on sports basis.
Thus, the petitioner is himself responsible for delay and for that he can not blame the department.”
.
It is stated that in response to the letters written, the appellant had not turned up for physical fitness examination.
In paragraph 9, it is also stated that the appellant was rightly called for trials etc.along with original sports, educational certificate to check his suitability regarding his enlistment as constable on sports basis.
However, he did not report for trials at PAP HeadquarteRs.Jalandhar Cantt which shows that he was not interested in getting the post.
In view of the above, no case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) Judge (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) Judge February 12, 2014 Atul Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.03 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh