L.P.A No. 107 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A No. 107 of 2006 Date of decision : August 28, 2008 Krishan Lal & others ...... Appellants through Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate v. State of Haryana & others, ...... Respondents through Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Addl.A.G.Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.3.2005, whereby their writ petition was dismissed, as well as the order dated 17.2.2006, whereby their Review Application was also dismissed. The appellants were enrolled as police Constables in Hisar District w.e.f 28.4.1992. However, a fresh physical test was conducted on L.P.A No. 107 of 2006 ::2:: 9.5.1992, wherein it was found that none of the appellants fulfilled the minimum condition of chest measurement and/or height requirement, and were consequently discharged under rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana). They filed CWP No.5591 of 1992 (out of which the present LPA has arisen), challenging the order of discharge. The learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, held as follows :- “ In the case of Des Raj and others there was re- measurement of the height and chest expansion of the petitioners and it was found that they did not measure up to the required standard of height and chest expansion. Height is something that could not have reduced in a few days. One would expect a newly recruited Constable's chest to swell up (with pride) and not measure less than the required standard. Therefore, even in these cases no inquiry was necessary as the physical standard had not been passed by the petitioners and they were rightly discharged.” As mentioned above, the appellants filed RA No.204 of 2005. The same was dismissed with the following observations :- “........ Even if an inquiry was held before discharge, the Inquiry Officer would have simply ordered the measurement of height and chest. This re-measurement had been conducted in the present case and it was this that had led to the discharge of the newly recruited constables. Physical standard is a basic requirement. L.P.A No. 107 of 2006 ::3:: Moreover, physical standard does not get reduced within a week or two. Further, if an inquiry was held after a few months then chest expansion could certainly have increased and may even have come upto the physical standard. The fact remains that at the time of re- measurement the petitioners had not met the standard. This was not at all a case for a detailed inquiry but simply one of proper measurement.” Shri Y.P.Malik, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the discharge order suffered from the fatal flaw of having been passed in violation of the well recognized principles of natural justice, since no opportunity of being heard was given to the appellants before their discharge. He has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 28.7.1992, as well as Single Bench judgment of this Court, dated 16.9.1992, whereby similar orders were set aside on the ground of being violative of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that infact, these two judgments relate to the same state-wide selection of Constables, which was held in Haryana in 1992, and urged that this appeal should be allowed in the same terms. In our opinion, this appeal must fail. As has been repeatedly held, principles of natural justice can never be straight jacketed into mathematical formulae but take colour from the attendant circumstances. Undoubtedly, if an adverse order has been passed against any person on the basis of any act or omission, it would be necessary to issue him a show cause notice. However, as held by the learned Single Judge, in the present case, the matter was only of measurement of chest/height. Had the L.P.A No. 107 of 2006 ::4:: impugned order been passed without remeasuring the chest or height, as the case may be, it may have been illegal. This is not the case. Admittedly, the appellants again underwent the physical test and it was as a result of remeasuring that they were found ineligible. Thus, in the attendant circumstances of this case, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. As regards the two judgments, relied upon by counsel for the appellants, it must be kept in mind that the said judgments happened to have been passed within a few weeks of the order of discharge. At that time it was reasonably practicable for the respondents therein to again re-measure the Constables after giving them notice and infact, the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 16.9.1992 specifically gave this liberty to the respondents. In the present case, this long hiatus of more than one and half decade has precluded this option, since any re-measurement of the appellants, which may be conducted today, would be irrelevant to determine their initial eligibility. Regarding the plea of learned counsel for the appellants that the consequences of the dismissal of this appeal would amount to differential treatment of similarly situated persons, it is to be seen that what differentiates the appellants is the above mentioned time gap. It was open to the appellants to have sought some interim orders from this Court at the initial stage whereby their re-measurement could have been conducted by some medical board so that their vital statistics at the relevant time were before this Court. Having not done so, the appellants cannot now be heard to urge that the pendency of this litigation cannot affect them prejudicially. In the circumstances, we find no illegality in the order of the L.P.A No. 107 of 2006 ::5:: learned Single Judge. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 28, 2008 'kk'