Samir Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

By the advertisement dated 29.01.2009, the applications were invited from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Constable (Male and Female). There were 253 vacancies for Constable(Male) and 32 for Constable(Female). The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in the prescribed format as asked by the respondents. It had been stipulated that there would be physical test, written test and oral interview. The details of physical test and requirement of essential height for the post of Constable(Male) has been provided in the said advertisement.

In the said selection exercise, held in the year 2008-09, the petitioner was not recommended. The petitioner had been shown in the final phase of the selection test as "under height" and on the basis of that, the petitioner was not selected. In the advertisement, it had been categorically provided that for recruitment in that category of the Constable(Male) minimum height of 167.64 would be required. Finally, it was determined that the petitioner did not have the required height, even though, he had successfully completed other tests. According to the petitioner, he conformed to the required height, but for not considering him, the recruitment process has been brought to end arbitrarily.

From the other side, Mr. S. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have averred in Para-6 of the reply that on the basis of the result of the written examination and physical test, the petitioner was suitable for the job, but when his height was measured during the interview, it was found that the petitioner's height was below the required height. Thus, the recruitment board for the post of Constable(Male) did not recommend the name of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the said decision of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition seeking a direction on the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Constable(Male).

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has raised serious objection on laches and challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, inasmuch as, the exercise for recruitment was taken in the year 2008-09 but the writ petition has been filed only on 20.09.2018, without any reason to assign for such laches. Thus, he has contended that this writ petition be axed at the threshold.

On appreciation of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that it had been clearly stated by the recruitment board that the petitioner was found under-height at the time of interview. The petitioner had cleared all other examination but for short-fall in height the petitioner was not recommended for appointment. What has been observed by this court that during almost ten years, the petitioner did not take any action for reasons, not known to this court. No reason has been revealed. Even there is no reason to disbelieve the finding of the recruitment board. There is no allegation of malafide. If malafide is pleaded, that has to be proved by the petitioner. But that has not been done in the present case.

Having observed thus, this court is of the view that the statutorily required height of 167.64 was not with the petitioner and as such, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim to be considered for appointment, in terms of the said advertisement.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.