Ram Veer vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1338 Del

11
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) 1288/2016 & IA No.5688/2016

                                       Decided on: 19th February, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
RAM VEER                                             ..... Petitioner
                        Through : Mr. A.K. Trivedi and
                        Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, Advocates

                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                           ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus,

directing the respondent/CISF to consider him for appointment to the

post of a Constable (Driver) by declaring him medically fit.

2. Mr. Trivedi, counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year

2014, the respondent No.2/CISF had issued an advertisement for

recruitment to the post of a Constable (Driver) and the petitioner had

applied in response. After clearing the written examination and the

physical examination, the respondent No.2/CISF issued a letter dated

27.3.2015, calling upon the petitioner to appear for his medical

examination on 23.4.2015 at the CISF Unit, SSG Greater Noida,

Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, where he was issued a rejection order dated

23.4.2015, declaring him unfit due to the following reason :

"Old injury Left Hand (2nd, 3rd and 4th Finger) Shorting of Left Middle Finger"

3. The aforesaid rejection order mentioned that if the applicant

proposes to file an appeal against the findings of the medical

examination, he should apply for a review medial examination to the

respondent after obtaining a medical certificate from a registered

Medical Practitioner in the prescribed form, within fifteen days.

Accordingly, the petitioner had approached the General Hospital, Alwar

for an opinion and a Medical Fitness Certificate dated 24.4.2015 was

issued by a Specialist at the said Hospital, who opined that the

petitioner had "an old injury and now that the fracture of the middle

finger has united well, he has got back the functioning of his left hand

except shorting of middle finger, which has no significance".

4. Armed with the aforesaid Certificate, the petitioner had filed an

appeal before the respondents on 15.6.2015 for a review medical

examination. In response, the respondent directed the petitioner to

appear for his review medical examination at CISF NHCC Hospital,

Saket, New Delhi on 7.7.2015. When the petitioner appeared before

the said Hospital on 7.7.2015, he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital

for a medical examination.

5. The Orthopaedic Surgeon at Safdarjang Hospital gave an opinion

dated 16.7.2015 stating inter alia that the movement of the

petitioner's finger was normal and there was no motor loss and the X-

ray of the left hand showed shortening of the left middle finger. The

petitioner presented the aforesaid report before the Review Medical

Board at the CISF Hospital. After taking note of the said opinion, the

Review Medical Board gave a report dated 17.7.2015, declaring the

petitioner unfit on account of "Post Traumatic Shortening of proximal

phalanx left middle finger". The ground for rejection was premised on

the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed

Police Forces and Assam Rifles as revised in May, 2015 handed over by

learned counsel for the respondents. Clause 3 of the said Guidelines

that deals with the impairment/deformities of the "Hand and Fingers",

states as below :

"3. Hand and fingers:

(a) Loss of only soft tissue of terminal phalanx of little finger of one or both hands is to be accepted.

xxx

(c) Scars and deformities of the fingers or hand that impair normal functioning/free movement of fingers/hand to such a degree as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of combatised duties, are disqualifying."

6. Aggrieved by the impugned rejection order, the petitioner had

approached a private hospital at Jhunjunu for his medical examination

and as per the Medical Fitness Certificate dated 20.10.2015 issued by

the said Hospital, "there was no deformity of 2nd, 3rd, 4th finger except

for shortening". It was also observed that functionally, the middle

finger was fit.

7. Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of independent

opinions from two different sources, the respondents ought not to have

turned down the petitioner's candidature on the ground of medical

unfitness. He requests that the respondent be directed to refer the

petitioner to any other government hospital for his re-examination.

8. It is an undisputed position that all the reports referred to by the

petitioner and enclosed with the present petition have opined that

there is an old injury in the left middle finger and further, that there is

a shortening of the middle finger. In such circumstances, we are of

the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by directing the

respondents to conduct a fresh Medical Review Board. The ground for

the rejecting of the candidature of the petitioner is the captioned

Guidelines that prescribes that in the event of impairment of normal

functioning/free movement of the finger/hands to such a degree as to

interfere with the satisfactory performance of combatised duties, the

candidate would stand disqualified.

9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had applied for

recruitment to the post of a Constable (Driver) in the CISF and he

would be required to constantly use his hands for a firm grip on the

steering wheel for steering the vehicle, a free and unobstructed

movement of hands would be a necessary prerequisite as per the job

profile.

10. We are also mindful of the fact that that ultimately, it is for the

respondent as an employer to decide the benchmark of a satisfactory

performance expected of a driver and the extent to which any

impairment of the free movement of hands/finger would interfere with

such a performance. In these circumstances, we decline to exercise

our powers of judicial review by insisting that the petitioner be

appointed to the post of a Constable driver in the CISF.

11. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is

dismissed, along with the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI (JUDGE)

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 19, 2016/sk