r y , ^g^^^B^I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 484 of 2003 Petitioner Respondents Versus : 1. 2. Vijay Kuiuar Tendon S/o Late Showkhi LalTendon Ex Chfld Constable, aged about 22 years, R/o, Chatapara PoUce Liae P.0. Bilaspur, Tahsil aud District BUaspur (C.G.) State of Chliattisgarh Through Secretaiy Home D.K.S. Buikliag, Raipur (C.G.) Dtrcctor General of PoUce State of Chhattisgarb Raipur (C.G.). 3. Inspector Greiieral of Police Chhattisgarh Police BUaspur (C.G.) 4. Superuitendent of PoUce Chliattisgarh Police Bilaspur (C.G.) Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri H.S. AhluwaUa, counsel for the Petitioner. Shri Suinesh Bajaj, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State. QRALORDER (13d1 Jauiiary, 2006) 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appoiated as child constable by order dated 20.9.1992 (Aanexure P-3) luider Regulation 60 of the Madhya Piadesh/Chhattisgarh PoUce Regulations, 1861. 2. Service of the petitioner was tenniaated vide order dated 2.8.2000 (Annexure P;l) wifhout assi^iiiug any reason or wifhout giviug show cause notice on fhe ground fhat fhe petitioner has attained the age of 18 years. 3. The petitioner was reiuoved from service of child constable on attaiaiag 18 years of age. Regulation 60 of fhe Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh PoUce Regulations, 1861 clearly provides that chUd constable on < mtasas attaining 18 years of age be considered against the first available vacaacy of constable under Regulation 53 for appouitineat A bare reading of imipugned. order dated 2.8.2000 (Aruiexure P-1) does not indicate as to whether fhe petitioner was considered for appointiuent on the post of constable under Regulation 53 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chliatdsgarh Police Regulations, 1861 tfrnot. 4. Mr. Siunesh Bajaj, learued Deputy Govt. Advocate appearfng for fhe respondents subinits on the basis ofafBdavit/retum filed on 18.10.2002 that "fhe petitioner had inoved aa appUcation for appointDient on the post of Constable on compassionate ground, fhereupon he was referred to inedical board for his inedical examination. The Medical Board found th&t the petitioner was uot fit to be appoiated on the post of Constable". Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner subnuts that Regulation 60 of fhe Madhya Pradesh/ChIiatdsgarh Police Regulations, 1861 does not reqTiire any appUcation for appQintDient as constable under Section 53. The petitioner was not iafonned aad no show cause notice was given to him with regard to his non selection by medical board. 6. After heard leamed couiisel for the parties and haviag perused the docuinents appended to fhe petition as weU as to the iietum, it is evident that the respondents have not appUed Regulation 60 properly. Regulation 60 clearly provides for consideration of child constabfc for appointiaent to fhe post of constable subject to suitabHity and fitaess on the post. It appears fhat fhe petitioner was not considered on its own. However, as subiaitted by leanaed counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was considered by niedical board on aa application inade by the petitioner for conipassionate appointment. 7. The respondents have failed to coiuply wifh the provisions of Regulation 60 as weU as Regulation 53 ofthe Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Police .9. iat.l.i Regulations, 1861. It is clear violation offhe statutoiy provisions ofthe Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Police Regulations 1861 and as such fhe unpugned order dated 2.8.2000 (Artaexure P-1) deserves to be quashed on the ground firstly, fhat no com.pUance of fhe statutoiy provisions was inade and secoadly, no show cause notice, alfordiag aa opportuiiity of hearing was issued before taking extreme steps (rfrenioval froin fhe post. In the facts aad circuiastarices of the case, if fhe petitioner is not found suitable or inedically fit for appointaient on the post of constable, the petitioner inay be considered for appouitment on other post of clerical/ ininisterial staff. The petitioner had spent 8 yeara of chUdhood in the job of the respondents and as priine age of his life the petitioner can not thrown Vke this. For the reasons stated above, the petition is aUowed. No order as to costs. g^ Satish K. Agmhotri Judge