~y )f2! i '/^s li ;OUI Appeliant Respondent No.1 Appeilant Respondent No.3 'i. ^ >eeai No^_580 ot State of Chhattisgarh, Throii^h the Secretary, Departmsnt of Home, DKS Bhavvan, Mantralaya, Raipur, ChhatEisgarh. Director General of Police, Police Heauquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Commandant, 2 Battalion, Chhattisgam Armed Forces, Sakri, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. tespond-ent : Devendra Nath iVtishra, S/o Glrdhariial tViishra, aaed Petitioner about 37 years, Constable (removed) R/o vi'lage Kondhar (Pura) PO Kondhar, Aliahabad Uttar 'radesh, At Pressnt R/o Sakri, Bilaspur (CG) Shri AS Kachhawaha, Dy'. Advocate Genera! for the State/appeilants. ihri'Ajay Mlshra, counsei for the respondent/petitioner. (13th January, 2011) PerDhirendra Mishra, J Heard on IA ?'>lo.01, application for condonation of delay in fiiing the instant appeal. 02, On due consideration of the reasons assianed in the above application, v.'hich is aiso supported by an arfidavit of Dy. Commandant, 21;u Battalion, CAF, Bilaspur, the application is aiiowed and delay in fiiin-g the appeai i.s condoned. 03. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order d-ated '29.3.2010 passed by iearned Singie Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 1.4.2000 (Annexure A/1) >assed by appellant No.3 discharging him from sep.'ices w.e.f. 1 .4.2000, has been aiiowed by setting aside the above order and it has been hetd that the ^l "J respondent is entitled to reinstatement in service with aii consequential benefits. 04. Shri AS Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State/appeliants, vehernently argued that the respondent was recruited due to some mistake or oversight in the recruitment process. The respondent was not eiigibie tor I'ecruitment on the post of Constabie aa his heiyht v»'as iess than 168 cm - the minirnum height necessary for recruitrnent on the post of Constabie. He diu not hold the requisite qualification and physicai abitity (height) and his recruitment was bad In iaw, He did not have any indefeasibie right to continue in service, particularly when he dld not possess the requisite physlca! standard prescribed for recruitment. in such circurnstances, affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondent was not necessary as the same would be a mere formaiity. However, the respondent was granted an opportunity of hearing when he was called for re-measurement of his heluht slter recfLiltnient, and in thess circuiTistances, hls clischaroe frcm the Dost couid not be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. 05. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counse! for the respondent'petitloner has supported the impugned order. 06. Heard learned counset for the parties. Perused the pieadings of the partiss in the wmt petition and the documents avaiiable on record. 07. The iearned Singie Judge has polnted out that the petitioner was appotnted on the post of Constab'e after undergoing process of regular selection comprising of entrance exarnination foliowed by an interoievu- and veriflcation of physica! fitness and aii other requirements. He underv/ent basic trainina successfuilv. However, after more than t>»/o years c-f his ser/ice, he was discharged frorn services by the impugned order without ~i8i "%, s ^ ^ jiv'ing any notice or any opportunity of hearing to him. His averrnents in the petition upon representation bejng made, he came to know that he has been uischarged because he did not possess the mJi'iimum height requi'rement, he again appeared for re-measurement of height but no decision was taken, have not been disputed by the respondents in their return. Whereas in the return as weli as in the impugned order, it is oniy mentioned that he has been discharged for administrative reasons, however, :he same have not been disciosed. it has been lastiy observed that it is always open for the respondents to take appropriate action strictty In accordancs with law. 08. We are in entire aQreement with the reasonings assianed in the impugned order passed by the learned Singie Judge. There is no substance in this appeai, the same desen/es to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge