Narender Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 3793 Del

$~11.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 4556/2016
        NARENDER KUMAR                           ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
                    Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate

                           versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                     ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

                           ORDER

% 19.05.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for quashing the order dated 20.02.2016 passed by the respondent/Indian

Navy declaring him unfit for appointment to the post of a Sailor on the

ground that he is suffering from "hyperhydrosis".

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner's

candidature was turned down by the respondents, he had approached the

Medical Specialist (MD), at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, who has given a

diagnosis on 22.04.2016 to the effect that the petitioner had been examined

for "hyperhydrosis", but at the time of his examination, there was no

evidence of the said condition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents states, on instructions, that the

condition of "hyperhydrosis" in layman's language means a condition where

the palms and soles of the feet suffer from excessive sweating on account of

a sympathetic nervous condition. She submits that the nature of the job of a

Sailor, as entailed in the Indian Navy, would require him to be mainly

posted at coastal areas where the weather is ordinarily hot, humid and

balmy, which would impede the petitioner from discharging his day to day

duties.

4. Having regard to the exigencies of service prescribed for a Sailor in

the Indian Navy and the submission of the counsel for the respondents that

this is not an ailment of a nature which could be overlooked to recruit the

petitioner, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's physical condition, as

detailed in the records handed over by the counsel for the respondents for

our perusal and also confirmed during the petitioner's provisional diagnosis

by the Surgeon Commander, Surgical Specialist, does not entitle him to any

relief. The parameters of fitness and the required standards for appointment

of a candidate in the Forces, has to be left to the discretion of the

respondents.

5. In any event, the report relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner

specifically states that at the time of his examination, the petitioner was not

suffering from sweating in the palms, which report is of the month of April,

2016 when the weather condition in Delhi are relatively more conducive vis-

a-vis the places where the petitioner would be required to be posted for

discharging his duties, that are mostly situated in coastal areas.

6. Taking into consideration the nature of the petitioner's diagnosis

which reveals that he suffers from excessive sweating in his palms and soles,

we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the

writ petition is dismissed.

HIMA KOHLI, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J MAY 19, 2016 rkb