Ram Nath Jha vs Dgp C.I.S.F.& Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5374 Del

5
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +     W.P.(C)No.4705/2010

                                Date of Decision : 26th November, 2010

%
      RAM NATH JHA                               ..... Petitioner
                            Through : Mr. Jintendra Kumar Jha, Adv.

                      versus

      DGP C.I.S.F.& ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                      Through : Mr. Abhishek Goyal, Adv. for
                                Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.       Whether Reporters of Local papers may                  NO
         be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.       To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be                         NO
         reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The instant case raises a challenge to the denial of

appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-

Inspector/work (Ex-servicemen) on the ground that he does not

have teeth.

2. It is the petitioner‟s contention that he lost his teeth while

he was working with the Army, and since 2002 has been using

the complete denture which had been fitted in the Military

Dental Hospital and has been categorized as SHAPE-I

throughout. The petitioner has submitted that he had retired

from the Indian Army in 2008 and had been placed in category

SHAPE-I at the time of retirement. The petitioner sought

employment with the respondents - Central Industrial Security

Force Court („CISF‟ hereafter) as an ex-serviceman which has

been denied. It is contended that the petitioner is medically fit

for re-employment.

3. The petitioner assails the rejection of the petitioner‟s

candidature for re-employment as an ex-serviceman by the

CISF on the ground that he has been certified as being

medically unfit for the reason that he does not possess teeth.

4. It has been pointed out that even the Indian Army

maintains separate standard of medical fitness so far as ex-

servicemen who are seeking re-employment are concerned.

The petitioner has urged that the CISF has no rules for

recruitment of ex-servicemen. This position is not disputed.

5. Our attention is drawn to para-43 of the rules for DSC and

APS personnel/Dockyard Apprentice (Navy) so far as dental

standards are concerned. Para-43(c) provides that artificial

dentures for ex-servicemen volunteering between the age of

30-45 years is permissible for re-employment.

So far as the dental standards and examination of teeth

which are prescribed in the said Manual for Recruiting Medical

Officers inter alia prescribes that "Ex-servicemen with well

fitted dentures may be accepted for re-enrolment".

6. Our attention is also drawn to the standards of physical

fitness test which have been prescribed by the army

authorities. We find that the minimum standards prescribed

for persons vary as per the age group of the concerned

personnel. A careful prescription of age wise graded criterion

has been made.

7. The respondents have placed reliance on the fitness

standards laid down by the CISF for initial recruitment. Judicial

notice can be taken of the fact that the fitness level of an

eighteen year old seeking initial recruitment cannot be the

same as that of an ex-servicemen who is seeking re-

employment after retiring beyond the age of 45 years.

8. The army authorities have applied their mind and

prescribed standards whereas no such effort has been made by

the CISF.

In view of the above, the certification of the petitioner‟s

medical unfitness by the Chief Medical Office (SG), CISF RTC on

6th September, 2009 on the ground of absence of teeth and by

the Review Medical Examination on the 7th April, 2010 for the

same reason, is certainly arbitrary and without any basis.

Admittedly, no rules for such evaluation are in existence.

This certification by the respondents on the sole ground

of medical unfitness is also not based on any relevant material

or criteria.

9. We find that the Military Dental Centre, Delhi Cantt. on

the 12th of September, 2009 has examined the petitioner and

has observed that the petitioner possesses denture and has

certified that the petitioner is dentally fit for CISF.

10. The rejection of the petitioner‟s candidature on the sole

ground of such finding of medical unfitness is, therefore, not

legally sustainable.

In view of the above, we make the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Commandant,

Army Hospital (Research and Referral), Delhi Cantt. with

all records of his medical examination and treatment, if

any, which may be in his power and possession, at

11.00 a.m. on 6th December, 2010.

(ii) The respondents shall also ensure that the complete

original record relating to the medical examinations of the

petitioner is placed before the Commandant, Army

Hospital (Research and Referral), Delhi Cantt. on 6th

December, 2010.

(iii) The Commandant, Army Hospital (Research and

Referral), Delhi is directed to constitute a Board of

concerned Specialists/Experts for examination of the

petitioner in the matter. The records which are produced

by the petitioner as well as the respondent shall be placed

before the Board so constituted.

(iv) The medical board, constituted in terms of our order

shall be at liberty to examine the petitioner as well as the

above records produced by the parties, on a date and

time appointed by it which shall be informed to both

parties. The Board shall thereafter take an independent

view in the matter uninfluenced by the reports produced

by the parties. The Board may apply the prescribed

standards in army for evaluation of a candidate seeking

re-employment for assessing the petitioner.

(v) The report as well as the standards being applied

shall be communicated to both the parties.

(vi) If the report is found in favour of the petitioner, the

respondents shall proceed in accordance with the

directions made above and shall take a reasoned view

within four weeks.

(vii) The order passed by the respondents shall be

forthwith communicated to the petitioner.

This writ petition is allowed in terms of the above

directions.

Copy of this order be given to counsel for the parties

under the signature of the Court Master.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2010 HL