IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 232 of 2004 (S/S) Praveen Kumar and another … Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, through the Principal Secretary, Forests Deptt. & others … Respondents Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri P.C. Jhingan learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to relax the prescribed minimum heights of the petitioners for their regular appointment on the post of Forest Guard. Brief facts according to the petitioner are that the petitioner no. 1 was engaged on daily wage basis in Class IV (Group D) capacity on 01.04.1984 in Dehradun Forest Division and the petitioner no. 2 was engaged in the same capacity in Dehradun Forest Division on 01.05.1985. According to the petitioners, they are fully qualified for regularization of service on the post of Forest Guard. In pursuance of the Uttaranchal Regularization of Daily Wage Employees outside the purview of the Public Service Commission, Rule 2003. The petitioners have submitted that they are fully qualified for the post of Forest Guard. The petitioners were medically examined and thereafter physical test of the petitioners were made, both the petitioners were found fit and suitable for the regular appointment on the post of Forest Guard. From the chart, it appears that the names of the petitioners are at serial nos. 440 and 578. The grievance of the petitioners is that on enquiry it was informed to them that in the physical examination both the petitioners were found to be 2 slightly less then 158 cms, height which is the minimum height of the candidate for appointment on the post of Forest Guard. The petitioners have also brought to the notice of the court regarding the selection which was made on 05.08.2003 where the names of the petitioners were mentioned in the selection list. The said letter is quoted below:- ^^bl ou izHkkx ds vUrxZr fuEu nSfud Jfedksa dk fofulfefrdj.k izLrkfor gSA vr% mils fuosnu gS fd fuEu Jfedksas dk voj v/khuLFk lsok fu;ekoyh 1980 ds iSjk&13 esa mYysf[kr ds vuq:i “kkjhfjd ijh{k.k djus dk d’V djsaA 1 Jh lqUnj yky 2 Jh izohu dqekj 3 Jh /khjsUnz nRr 4 Jh nhoku flag 5 Jh nhun;ky 6 Jh “ksj flag 7 Jh lrh”k flag 8 Jh /kuhjke 9 Jh eyjkt flag 10 Jh iznhi dqekj 11 Jherh uhye 12 dq0 lq”khyk ik.Ms The petitioners have submitted that they have made a joint representation to the Chairman of the Selection Committee bringing to the notice of the authorities concerned regarding this fact. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioners have annexed the Government Order passed by the State of U.P. vide notification No. 20/3/1982-Karmik-2-85-one, dated 10.03.1985, which reads as under:- ^^tgka jkT; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks tk; fd vf/k’Bku esa fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh lsok dh 'krksZa dks fofu;fer djus okys fdlh fu;e ds izorZu ls fdlh fof”k’V ekeys esa vuqfpr dfBukbZ gksrh gS] ogka og] ml ekeys esa ykxw fu;eksa esa fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh vkns”k }kjk ml lhek rd vkSj ,slh vU; 'krksZa ds v/khu jgrs gq, ftUgsa og ekeys esa U;k;laxr vkSj lkE;iw.kZ lhfr ls 3 dk;Zokgh djus ds fy;s vko”;d le>s] ml fu;e dh mis{kk ls vfHkeqfDr ns ldrh gS ;k mls f”kfFky dj ldrh gSA In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with Rule 32 of the Karamchari Sewa Niyamawali, 1985. The respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the filing of the certified copy of the order. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 24.04.2004 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) ASWAL