IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1164 of 2019 Decided on: 30.08.2025 Pankaj Gora ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. C. Bhanu Pratap Thakur, 309, 3rd IRBn Pandoh, HC Arvind Kumar No.82, District Kangra and Ramesh, Senior Assistant are present in person and produced the record. Satyen Vaidya, Judge(oral) 1. Aggrieved against the office order dated 05.05.2012. Annexure P-4, whereby the provisional selection of the petitioner as Constable under OBC-UR category stands cancelled, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for following substantive reliefs: “ii) That this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned office order dated 5.5.2012 (Annexure P-4) with all consequences. 2 Iii) That this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Police Constable and allow the petitioner for join the training of Police Constable at Police Training Centre Daroh.” 2. The only fact in dispute is whether the petitioner qualified the physical standards prescribed for appointment as Constable in the Police Department of the State. 3. The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Constable in Himachal Pradesh Police under OBC-UR category. The selection process was undertaken in the months of July and August 2011. 4. As per the petitioner, he had cleared the ground test and his height, as measured in the field, was 5’11”. Thus, he had qualified and was ultimately provisionally selected by the recruiting agency. 5. Later, further verification was held as to the height of the petitioner and the matter was referred to the Medical Board, which, vide its opinion dated 28.01.2012, held that the height of the petitioner was 179 cms equal to 5’10½”. 6. The petitioner claims himself to be 5’11” in height and thus, qualified for being appointed as Constable in H.P. Police. He has placed reliance on a certificate issued by Senior Medical 3 Officer, PHC, Haripur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra on 19.06.2012, Annexure P-5, according to which, the height of petitioner is shown as 5’11”. 7. In order to get the better view of the factual aspect, the original record of the recruitment process was requisitioned by this Court. Today, the record has been produced. On its perusal, it has been found that during the field test, the height of petitioner was mentioned 5’11”. However, in the same document there is a note appended by the Medical Officer of the Battalion in following terms: “Height checked and found 5’10½”. 8. This aspect has further been verified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 3rd India Reserve Battalion Pandoh, District Mandi and the following note can be found appended under the signatures of said officer. “Note: I have also verified the report with regard to the height of the candidate shown above given by the Medical Officer, 3rd IR Battalion, Pandoh, District Mandi and found it correct.” 9. Thereafter, the matter was not left there only, the case was referred to the Medical Board, which also opined the height of the petitioner to be 5’10½”. 4 10. In the above background, much reliance cannot be placed on the document Annexure P-5, relied upon by the petitioner, which on the face of it does not reveal that the concerned Medical Officer had taken into consideration the opinion of the Medical Board while rendering his own opinion. Admittedly, the opinion rendered by the Medical Board was prior in time. Thus, the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained, more particularly, when there is no allegation of any malafide against any of the respondents. 11. In result, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned office order Annexure P-4 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. Record returned. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge August 30, 2025 (vt)