Delhi High Court
Yogesh Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 March, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10471/2015
YOGESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: : Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: : Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate with
Commd. (JG) N. Prabhakar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 09.03.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for quashing the order dated 17.8.2015, passed by the respondent No.3
declaring him unfit for the post of Navik in the Indian Coast Guard on the
ground that he is underweight.
2. The petitioner had successfully qualified for enrolment to the post of
Navik in the Indian Coast Guard on 7.4.2015. On 14.7.2015, he had passed
the written examination which comprised of a screening test, main test and
physical efficiency test. The petitioner was called for his final medical
examination and training at INS, Chilka, Odisha and was directed to report
on 17.8.2015. On 17.8.2015, at the time of his examination, when the
petitioner was found underweight, he was declared unfit for appointment.
3. Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner had travelled all the way from District Nagaur, Rajasthan to INS,
Chilka, Odisha which took about two days for presenting himself before the
respondent on 17.8.2015 and in this duration, he was suffering from high
fever and diarrhoea due to which, he had lost weight and was declared
underweight. He submits that subsequently, the petitioner had recovered
from fever and diarrhoea, etc., and had regained his weight as is reflected
from the noting dated 24.9.2015 in his OPD card issued by Safdarjung
Hospital, Delhi, which mentions his weight as 57 kg on 24.9.2015. The
petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to reconsider his case for
appointment on the ground that he is presently not underweight.
4. On the last date of hearing, during the course of arguments, counsel
for the respondents was directed to file an additional affidavit, apart from the
counter affidavit already filed and clarify therein as to what exactly was the
petitioner's weight when he had reported at the INS, Chilka, Odisha on
17.8.2015. As per the said affidavit, the petitioner had weighed 48 kg.,
without shoes, on 17.8.2015. For enrollement in the Coast Guard, the ideal
weight required for an 18 to 22 years old candidate with the height of 176
cm, is 62.5 kg. and the acceptable range of the actual weight is ± 10% of the
ideal weight, i.e., 55.25 to 68.75 kg. However, on 17.8.2015, the
petitioner's weight was found to be less by 7.25 kg which was after giving
him the benefit of 10% of the acceptable variation. It was in this background
that the petitioner's case was rejected. The original records produced by the
counsel for the respondents bear out the averments made in the additional
affidavit. Moreover, no documents have been filed by the petitioner to
substantiate his claim that he was suffering from fever and diarrhea at the
relevant time, which had resulted in a loss of weight of 7½ kg over a short
span of two days.
5. Counsel for the respondents clarifies that the request of the petitioner
for seeking review of his medical condition was declined as there is no
provision for holding a review medical board in the Indian Coast Guard and
even if the said request is considered by the Court, fact of the matter is that
by now, the candidates who had participated in the examination with the
petitioner, have almost completed their training that had commenced in
August, 2015 and it would be too late in the day to consider the petitioner's
request for a review medical board.
6. In any case, having regard to the age of the petitioner and the fact that
more opportunities will arise in the future for him to apply for the same post,
including in the current year 2016, as informed by the counsel for the
respondents, we are not inclined to direct the respondents to hold a review
medical board for the petitioner at this belated stage. The present petition is
accordingly dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MARCH 09, 2016
sk/mk
