Delhi High Court
Jitender Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 18 May, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
* 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
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.
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,
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
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‟
