IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with government orders and fair treatment in recruitment processes, ruling against arbitrary actions by authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Irshad Ali, J.

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra and Mrs. Nandini Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Ganesh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.7.2006, passed by the respondent No.4 (Superintendent of Police, Sitapur). He has prayed as under :-

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25-07-2006 (Annexure No. 1) issued by opposite party No. 4/ 5.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to accept the joining of the petitioner submitted on 29-06-94 and issue Identity Card, Proper dresses and requirements and treat the petitioner to be appointed as Uttar Pradesh Police/Constable in continuous service from the date of the Hon'ble Governor's sanction vide Government order No. 4017/6-PU-10-94 dated 28-06-94.

(iii) To issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 4 /5 S.P. Sitapur to issue self speaking appointment order in the light of Govt. order dated 17-06-94 & 28-06-94 and pay him salary with all allowances regularly day to day for the post of Uttar Pradesh Constable with all consequential benefits of service.

(iv) To issue writ order or direction for payment of special damages at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year alongwith 22% interest per year in favour of the petitioner for making mentally, physically, socially and financially torture and spoiling the future and career of the petitioner as well as his dependents maliciously, willfully and arbitrary delaying in the matter for about 12 years without any fault of the petitioner with biased and harassing attitude by ignoring the clear-cut orders of Government as well as order of I.G. establishment and various orders of this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.

(v) To issue writ order or direction to pay the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner against the opposite parties.

(vi) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

3. Facts in brief are that in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1994 for selection and appointment of Constables, the petitioner offered his candidature and appeared at Sitapur Center for consideration of his candidature vide Registration No.1897 on the date fixed. He was found short by 1 cm than the required measurement in the category of expanded chest. He made a representation to the State Government and a letter dated 15.06.1994 was issued by the State Government addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow for getting his physical measurement done and to send report to the State Government. This letter is Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

Consequent upon the communication dated 15.06.1994, a copy of which was also endorsed to the petitioner, the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow conducted a physical standard examination of the petitioner and reported that his chest on expansion was 88 cm which was more than the prescribed norms.

On receipt of the certification as made by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, the State Government proceeded to issue an order dated 17.06.1994 (Annexure-5) directing the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur to take steps to appoint the petitioner against reserved category of Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Sports as he was found eligible as per physical fitness certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow.

4. On receipt of the State Government's communication dated 17.06.1994, the then Superintendent of Police, Sitapur wrote a letter dated 19.06.1994 that the petitioner was found unfit in the physical verification and the physical verification made by the Chief Medical Officer had no relevance. Thereafter, the State Government issued a detaile