Kuldeep vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 575 Del

$~
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

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

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