Delhi High Court
Ashwani Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 22 March, 2013
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2013.
+ W.P.(C) 1914/2013
ASHWANI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Atul Kumar & Ms. Sweety Singh, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner had applied in response to an advertisement for
filling up vacancies to the post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial)
Group C in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) in July, 2011. A
written test was held in November, 2011; the petitioner was declared
successful and short listed to appear in the typing and skill test. He was
subsequently selected in February, 2012 and detailed for medical
examination after he was successful in the skill test. His candidature was
rejected on 2nd March, 2012 on medical grounds; the communication cited
that X-ray showing, "consolidation in right mid zone".
2. Aggrieved, the petitioner requested the IG, ITBP, on 20th
March, 2012 for re-medical examination on the basis of X-ray and fitness
certificate issued by the government doctor. The government doctor had
certified that the petitioner is fit and was not suffering from any ailment
which impaired his efficiency. Consequently, the petitioner was given
another opportunity through a letter dated 8th May, 2012 for re-medical
examination, which was to be conducted on 23rd May, 2012. The ITBP, this
time again, rejected the petitioner's candidature on 24th July, 2012 stating
that there was "consolidation in the right mid zone shown in the X-ray". It
was argued by the petitioner that he sought for a copy of the X-ray under the
Right to Information Act; this request was turned down. Consequently, he
has approached the court for appropriate directions that the rejection of his
candidature is arbitrary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Fitness
Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Naraina Dispensary,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which states that the rejection on the
ground of his suffering from the condition of, "consolidation of right mid
zone", was an error of judgment. Petitioner has also relied upon the
treatment / medical papers issued by Viswanathan Chest Hospital, Delhi,
which contained the history sheet in respect of his medical condition. It is
submitted that having regard to these, the petitioner cannot be characterized
as medically unfit, and that his condition is merely, "Asymptomatic", and
does not require any treatment.
4. This Court has examined the materials on record, and also the
submission made by the petitioner. The observations and the medical
records produced before the Court, which are part of the records of the
Viswanathan Chest Hospital, indicate that, on 13th March, 2012, the patient
was stated to be, "Pt. Asymptomatic"; upon examination of the repeat X-ray
of the chest, the doctor noted, "infiltration (Rt)(UZ)", and he was
recommended to undergo a CT Scan. It was also noted that, "Infiltration"
has been "persisting from 3/2012" - no progression + no fresh lesion". The
observation concluded "Healed Patch (Fibrosis). The investigation reveals
that there is no active lesion and patient does not require any treatment".
5. It is evident from the above that even the medical records relied
upon by the petitioner do not unambiguously state that he is 100% fit. He
was apparently an old case of Fibrosis, although it has healed, some traces
remain which have led the doctors to conclude that he is not medically up to
the standard. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner's qualifying in
the physical efficiency test belied the rejection of his candidature. This
Court is not in agreement with this proposition. Physical efficiency cannot
be entirely equated with medical fitness, especially in a case of this nature
where candidate would be deployed on active duty for substantial period of
time in high altitude areas. Having regard to all these factors, the
respondents were of the opinion that the petitioner's medical condition was
not fit enough for his appointment. However, at his request, a review was
undertaken. The materials on record do not persuade the Court to conclude
that the petitioner was unfairly or arbitrarily dealt with in the matter of
rejection of his candidature, therefore, the relief sought cannot be granted.
The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
MARCH 22, 2013
dr
