Ajay Mohan Goel, J
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) To direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to join to the post of Constable in pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2019 as contained in
Annexure PÂIV.
(ii) To direct the respondents to send the petitioner to undergo the Recruit Training Course already started w.e.f. 23.12.2019.
(iii) To restrain the respondents from issuing any appointment letter and to give appointment to the candidate from the waiting list to the post meant for
petitioner.â€
2. When this case was listed on 20 th July, 2019, this Court passed the following order:
“The controversy involved in the present writ petition is with regard to recruitment to the post of Constables in the State of Himachal Pradesh,
which process stood initiated by the respondent Department vide recruitment notice dated 03.03.2019. In terms of the said recruitment notice, inter
alia 213 vacancies of Constables for female candidates were advertised. Physical and other standards for being eligible to be recruited to the said
posts were that the candidates belonging to the general category should have been aged between 18 to 23 years, should possess educational
qualification of 10+2 and minimum height should have been 5 feet 2 inch.
Documents appended with the petition demonstrates that vide Annexure PÂ5, which is a communication addressed by Superintendent of Police,
District Hamirpur, H.P. to all SHOs in District Hamirpur, the name of the petitioner was reflected to have been provisionally selected for the post of
Constable in Himachal Pradesh Police and allotted against the existing vacancy of 5th IRBN Bassi, District Bilaspur. It further stood mentioned in the
said communication that the candidates, whose names were mentioned therein, were directed to report to the Commandant concerned for their
appointment and further recruitment training course (RTC).
Primarily the grievance of the petitioner is that in the garb of this recruitment training course, the petitioner was again subjected to a height test where
she was arbitrarily rejected for being appointed on the post in issue on the ground that her height was less than 5 feet 2 inch.
On the contrary, the stand of the State is that post issuance of Annexure PÂ5, the petitioner as per Rules was to undergo the medical test, which was
a preÂappointment condition and it was in the course of this particular test, that it was found that her height was less than 5 feet 2 inch.
Be that as it may, before the matter is heard any further, respondent No. 2 is directed to have the height of the petitioner reÂmeasured, strictly in
accordance with the Rules dispassionately by ensuring that no injustice is caused to the petitioner and report thereof be submitted to this Court in a
sealed cover. Needful shall positively be done before 31st July, 2020. The petitioner shall be informed about the place and time where she has to
present herself for the purpose of verification of her height at least 72 hours before the actual measurement has to take place.
As prayed for, list on 05.08.2020.â€
3. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned Additional Advocate General informed the Court that in compliance to the above
order, height of the petitioner was measured and the result is in a sealed cover. He sought leave of the Court to present the sealed cover to the Court.
The Court permitted him to open the same in his office itself, as the matter was being addressed by learned Additional Advocate General through
Video Conference. Before the same could be done by the Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is another
miscellaneous application which has been filed by the petitioner, i.e., CMP No. 6945 of 2020 and appropriate orders be passed on the said application,
because as per the petitioner, the mode and manner in which the height of the petitioner was measured pursuant to the order passed by the Court, was
not correct.
4. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, in my considered view, no fruitful purpose is now going to be served by directing the learned
Additional Advocate General to open the sealed cover, as the petitioner is disputing the mode and manner of measuring her height again.
5. In view of the fact that the dispute involved in this writ petition is as to what is the actual height of the petitioner, which in my considered view, is a
pure and simple question of fact, it is not for this Court to determine this issue in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, as involving disputed questions of fact. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to hand over
the sealed cover to the Court Master of this Court during the course of the day itself and the same shall form part of the record. The petitioner shall,
however, be at liberty to agitate her cause before the Civil Court. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
