$~
12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.558/2012 and CM No.1192/2012
% Date of decision: 27th January, 2012
KULDEEP ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate.
ORDER
% 27.01.2012 ANIL KUMAR, J. * W.P.(C)No.532/2012
Issue show cause notice to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate accepts notice and seeks two weeks time to file the reply to show cause notice. Reply to show cause notice be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 27th February, 2012.
CM No.1192/2012 Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Rajinder Nischal, Advocate accepts notice and seeks two weeks time to file the reply to the application. Reply to the application be filed within W.P.(C)No.558/2012 Page 1 of 3 two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of the Review Medical Board has not been communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced the copy of the decision of the Review Medical Board holding again that the petitioner has hypertension (BP - 156/100) mm Hg and therefore he is unfit.
According to the standards of the respondents, the blood pressure should not be higher than 140 mm Hg systolic and/or 90 mm Hg diastolic and if it is recorded to be higher than, two reviews should be taken in lying position at the interval of 6 to 8 hours before declaring the applicant unfit. It is also contemplated that the blood pressure should be recorded in both arms which has not been done in the case of petitioner.
The Review Medical Board though records that the blood pressure was taken on 21st 22nd 23rd and 24th, however, the readings recorded on 21st 22nd 23rd and 24th are not given in the report of the review board nor the procedure indicated has been followed.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has been able to make out a good prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The inconvenience caused to the petitioner shall W.P.(C)No.558/2012 Page 2 of 3 be much more in case he is found to be fit and at that stage, if there is no vacancy left for the post of Constable (GD).
Consequently, the respondents are directed to keep one post of Constable (GD) vacant till the next date of hearing.
List on 27th February, 2012.
Dasti.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 27, 2012 mk W.P.(C)No.558/2012 Page 3 of 3