Delhi High Court
Yogesh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 May, 2016
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 307/2016
YOGESH ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Choudhary and
Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Shubhra Prashar with
Mr. Debajyoti Behura, Advocates with
Dr. Gaurav Sharma.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 27.05.2016
1. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the respondents had stated that
she shall ensure that a doctor from the department would appear on the next
date of hearing to give a clarification with regard to the condition described
as 'pityriasis versiculer', which the petitioner is said to be suffering from.
2. Today, Dr. Gaurav Sharma from the respondent/CISF is present and
hands over a document downloaded from the website of the British
Association of Dermatologists, that describes the condition of 'pityriasis
versiculer', which is stated to be a type of fine skin scaling resulting in
changing of the colour of the skin and it is stated to happen most often in
warm and moist climates. The said condition results in a rash on the skin as
the yeast that lives on normal skin, never goes away completely.
3. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that in view of the fact that the
petitioner, if recruited, shall be expected to work in warm and moist climatic
conditions and in those circumstances, his skin condition would get
aggravated as he is suffering from 'pityriasis versiculer', it could result in
damaging the immunity system and it is on this ground that his candidature
for the post of a Constable (GD) had to be turned down.
4. Per contra, Ms. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner hands over certain information downloaded from the internet
pertaining to the condition of 'pityriasis versiculer' and states that this is a
harmless common yeast infection of the skin and cannot be a ground to turn
down the petitioner's candidature particularly when the Senior Resident,
MD Dermatology, Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi has stated in his report dated
8.12.2015, that he does not suffer from any fungal infection.
5. Having regard to the fact that the report of the Safdarjung Hospital,
Delhi is of December, 2015, and was obtained six months ago, we deem it
appropriate to direct the respondents to approach the R&R Hospital, Delhi
with a request that a Review Medical Board be constituted in respect of the
petitioner relating to the aforesaid condition. A dermatologist will be made
a part of the Review Medical Board. The petitioner shall be intimated of the
date and time when he is required to present himself before the Review
Medical Board. The same shall be communicated to him through his counsel
within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall appear before
the Board on the fixed date and time along with the relevant records.
6. The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner's medical records are
forwarded to the Review Medical Board for their perusal. The Review
Medical Board shall submit its report directly to the respondents, with a
copy thereof furnished to the petitioner. Both the parties shall be bound by
the report of the Review Medical Board, R&R Hospital, Delhi, which shall
be treated as final.
7. The writ petition is disposed of.
8. Dasti to the counsel for the respondents.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 27, 2016
sk/mk/ap
