Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 December, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9701/2017
PRADEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharm Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anju Gupta and
Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 01.12.2017
1. The petitioner has prayed for issuing directions to the
respondents/CISF to appoint him to the post of Constable (Driver).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide Notification dated
19.11.2016 issued by the respondents/CISF applications were invited to fill-
up backlog vacancies to the post of Constable (Driver) for SC/ST candidates
and the petitioner herein had applied for the subject post and was issued a
call letter for his medical examination.
3. On 19.5.2017, during his medical examination, the petitioner was
found medically unfit due to 'Perforation of right tympanic membrance'
(normal absence of Perforation). The petitioner asked for a Review Medical
Examination in respect of the findings returned declaring him unfit for the
subject post. Vide order dated 27.7.2017, the Review Medical Board also
declared him unfit for the very same reasons.
4. Prior to appearing before the Review Medical Board, the petitioner
underwent a surgery (on 28.05.2017) for correcting the problem by
undergoing tympanoplasty. Aggrieved by the decision taken by the Review
Medical Board, on 27.07.2017, declaring him unfit, the petitioner has filed
the present petition stating inter alia that he is now fit for the subject post in
as would be apparent from the certificate dated 27.07.2017, issued by the
Review Medical Board.
5. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid certificate dated 27.07.2017, issued
by the Review Medical Board specifically notes that the petitioner has not
yet completed the post operative period of four months, post his surgery. On
the last date of hearing, we had requested learned counsel for the
respondents to obtain clear instructions on the above aspect.
6. Today, learned counsel hands over a copy of the policy guidelines
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which states
that in post operative cases, a candidate shall be considered fit in the event,
he has undergone tympanoplasty, only after the expiry of four months,
reckoned from the date of the surgery. Further, learned counsel for the
respondents states that he has obtained instructions to the effect that there
are 344 vacancies in the post of Constable (Driver). A copy of the letter
dated 22.11.2017 received by him from the Department is handed over and
taken on record. He states that the respondents/CISF shall be issuing a fresh
notice for filling up the said vacancies, within six months and the petitioner
would be still eligible to apply for the said post as he is 26 years old and
being an ST candidate, would be entitled to relaxation in terms of the
relevant government orders, if applicable to him.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to grant the
relief prayed for, by directing the respondents/CISF to appoint the petitioner
to the post of Constable (Driver). As and when the respondents issue a fresh
advertisement for filling up the remaining 344 vacancies in the post of
Constable (Driver), the petitioner shall be entitled to apply for the subject
post, if eligible.
8. The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
DECEMBER 01, 2017
ap/av
