* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.2925/2012 & CM No.6304/2012
Jitender Kumar ... Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Athar Alam, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
CM No.6304/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.2925/2012
1. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to have a Review Medical Board for ascertaining his medical fitness for the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator) and to appoint him to the said post in Border Security Force.
2. The petitioner has alleged that he had applied for the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator) in Scheduled Castes category. Pursuant to his application, an admit card was issued to him and he WP (C) 2925 of 2012 Page 1 of 5 was called for written test on 25th September, 2011 and he was allotted the roll number 111220400757. The petitioner qualified the written test whose result was declared on 10th October, 2011 and he was called for physical test at STC BSF, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The petitioner thereafter, was referred for medical examination on 21st October, 2011 at Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Pursuant to the medical examination, the petitioner was declared unfit on account of having "Extra toe in left foot". The petitioner contended that he was told that he would be selected if the extra toe in the left foot is got removed at the Government Hospital of his home town, Agra and if the medical fitness certificate is sent to the department within the prescribed period of 30 days.
4. The petitioner relied on the memorandum dated 21st October, 2011 issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after being declared medically unfit he got himself operated for extra toe of the left foot. After removal of extra toe, a medical fitness certificate was issued by District Hospital, Agra. The petitioner thereafter, on the basis of medical fitness certificate dated 25th October, 2011 sought for a review medical examination and sent his request in terms of memorandum dated 21st October, 2011 on 12th November, 2011.
WP (C) 2925 of 2012 Page 2 of 5
5. The petitioner further pleaded that on 24th January, 2012 he received a communication from the respondents rejecting his request for Review Medical Board on the ground that his appeal for re- examination had not been received within the prescribed time. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the action of the respondents, inter-alia, on the grounds that the respondents have acted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as after the operation, the petitioner is a healthy person and he does not have any physical disability. The petitioner asserted that he is a victim of internal conflicts and the wrong policies of the respondents and in the circumstances, the respondents be directed to constitute a Review Medical Board and he should be appointed to the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator).
6. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. Mr.Himanshu Bajaj counsel for the respondents who appears on advance notice has contended that the presence of an extra toe is a congenital malformation and the condition is called hexadactyly. Relying on uniform guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for common recruitment of Constable/GD in CAPFs and AR, the learned counsel contended that under clause 20(x) contemplating grounds of deformity, it is contended that deformities in the foot like flat foot, club foot, planter warts etc. are grounds for rejection. The learned counsel has also referred to clause 56 dealing with congenital abnormalities which contemplates that the candidates with deformities like Talipes, WP (C) 2925 of 2012 Page 3 of 5 Pescavus (toes are clawed and callosities form over metatarsal heads) or contracture or planter fascia etc. are to be permanently rejected. The learned counsel, in the circumstances, contended that in view of the permanent deformity which could not be corrected merely by amputation, the petitioner is liable to be permanently rejected and has been accordingly rejected and the petitioner is not entitled for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator).
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is not disputed that the petitioner‟s candidature for the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator) was rejected on account of extra toe in the left foot which holds the petitioner liable for permanent rejection in terms of uniform guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for common recruitment of Constable/GD in CAPFs and AR. If the petitioner is liable for permanent rejection on account of the stipulations made in the guidelines which has not been challenged, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that he has become medically fit on account of being operated for removal of extra toe and, therefore, he has become eligible for appointment and he is also medically fit.
8. The abnormality in the petitioner is congenital which is the cause for permanent rejection. Mere superficial removal of the 6th toe will not make the petitioner medically fit in the facts and circumstances and, therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he is medically fit and is WP (C) 2925 of 2012 Page 4 of 5 entitled for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator). There are no cogent grounds disclosed by the petitioner which will make the decision of the respondents illegal or irregular or perverse.
9. Considering all the facts and circumstances there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the respondents declaring the petitioner medically unfit declining him the appointment to the post of Head Constable (Radio Operator). The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J MAY 18, 2012 „k‟ WP (C) 2925 of 2012 Page 5 of 5