The Delhi High Court has recently passed a judgement rescuing an aspiring Judge who was declared medically unfit to hold the post due to Renal Transplant despite clearing the exam.
The Court has called Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE Rules which provided that all candidates having transplanted organs should be declared "unfit‟ except corneal transplant as "an archaic rule".
The authorities thus accordingly directed to restore the petitioner's candidature as the Court observed that the Rule cannot stand in the wake of medical advancements which have taken place over the decades.
CASE BACKGROUND
The petitioner herein had cleared the Delhi Judicial Services and accepted the offer of appointment accordingly. He then was called for Medical Examination as per rules. In the reports so out, he was declared to be "Unfit on account of Renal Transplant" in terms of Clause 17 of Appendix III of the Civil Services Examination, (CSE) Rules.
Dishearted with this, the petitioner moved the High Court with his grievances.
He contended before the Court that his renal transplant– conducted way back in 2015, he is leading a normal life and is taking the prescribed medications therefor and thus transplant couldn't be claimed to be a reason to medically disqualify him since the said transplant and the petitioner‟s present medical condition has absolutely no bearing on the discharge of the duties and responsibilities that he would be required to perform as a Judicial Officer.
He further added that the nature of his prospective job as a Judicial Officer required him to function at the place of his posting in a Court/ office environment and did not entail excessive physical exercise.
He went onto add that the Clause was framed way back in 1964 after that Medical Science has progressed beyond expectations and thus the Clause is limited in its nature.
On the other hand, the Learned Counsel of the respondent submitted that as per Rule 33 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, residuary matters such as medical fitness of the candidates were dealt by the Rules of the Union of India and thus they are bound to follow the Rules contained in Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE Rules.
Hearing all the submissions, the Court admitted the petitioner had remained stable and normal for the last five years and the Rules is an archaic rule considering the growth in the medical sector after its formation.
The Court pointed out:
"It is clear to us that Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE Rules, which, inter alia, provides that all candidates having transplanted organs should be declared „unfit‟ except corneal transplant, is an archaic rule, which cannot stand in the wake of medical advancements which have taken place over the decades and since the said rule was framed in the year 1964. The same is extremely widely worded and proceeds on the assumption that persons who undergo an organ transplant (except corneal transplant) can not lead a stable, fruitful and healthy normal life. This assumption can no longer be justified in the light of the medical advancements made over the decades."
The Court also referred to the High Court judgement in Ranjit Kumar Rajak (supra) in which it was established that Right to Life and Liberty of a person cannot be denied or depleted only on account of his medical condition when such medical condition is not such as to interfere with his normal functioning on the post for which he has offered his candidature, and he has been found to be otherwise competent for selection.
It thus, in view of the above directed the respondent not to reject petitioner‟s candidature only on account of his being declared medically „unfit‟ by the communications taken note of hereinabove issued by the AAAG Hospital and LN Hospital and restored the petitioner's candidature.
The Counsels were as following:
For Petitioner: Advocates Harpreet Singh, Gagan Kumar Singhal, Suhani Mathur, Atul Sharma.
For High Court: Advocates Sanjoy Ghose, Rishabh Jetley, Naman Jain.
For Delhi Government: Advocates Avnish Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh
The judgement was delivered by Justice VIPIN SANGHI and Justice SANJEEV NARULA on 02-03-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
