Delhi High Court
Mahipal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 September, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10206/2016 and C.M No. 4073/2017
Date of decision:15th September, 2017
MAHIPAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj and
Mr.Sat D. Srivastav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner Mahipal had applied for recruitment to the post of
Airman in Group 'X' and 'Y' pursuant to the advertisement dated
22.09.2014 issued by the Central Airmen Selection Board, New Delhi.
On clearing the written examination, the petitioner was sent for the
medical examination and declared fit in both 'X' and 'Y' Group.
Accordingly, a Medical Fitness certificate was issued on 13.10.2015.
Thereafter, All India Selection List was published on 31.10.2015. The
Petitioner, in view of the merit positions, was recommended for selection
to the post of Airman in Group 'X'.
WP(C) 10206/2016 Page 1
2. Petitioner thereafter, was issued Joining letter on 21.06.2016 in the
IInd Batch.
3. As there was a time gap of more than six months between the
medical examination and the date of issuance of joining letter, the
petitioner was subjected to fresh medical examination as prescribed by the
Rules.
4. The petitioner was declared unfit on account of PILONIDAL
SINUS vide Medical Unfitness certificate dated 21.06.2016.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, underwent a surgery on 28.06.2016.
6. The petitioner was subsequently examined by the Appeal Medical
Board in Command Hospital on 29.07.2016 and was declared medically
unfit.
7. The petitioner submits that he had got himself examined at General
Hospital, Naunaul on 07.09.2016 and relying on fitness certificate issued,
has filed the present writ petition.
8. By order dated 21.11.2016, notice was issued and the respondents
were asked to get the petitioner medically re-examined at the Army Base
Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The petitioner was accordingly re-examined at the
Army Base Hospital by the Special Appeal Medical Board, and found to
WP(C) 10206/2016 Page 2
be fit as there was no evidence of recurrence. The said certificate also
states that this opinion was on the basis of medical examination on
18.1.2017 (sic 11.01.2017). The Special Appellate Board has observed
that there was no provision for temporary unfitness.
9. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioner was suffering
from PILONIDAL SINUS when he was examined by the Medical Board
on 21.06.2016 and was declared unfit. This is clear from the admission
made by the petitioner that he had got himself operated for the said
ailment on 26.07.2016. The ailment is established. The Appeal Medical
Board had examined the petitioner on 29.07.2016,and had concluded that
the wound of the petitioner had not healed. Medical Unfitness Certificate
dated 5.08.2016 was issued. The medical condition of the petitioner on
the said date has to be considered and examined, to decide whether or not
the petitioner was fit. Examination on subsequent date after passage of
time is immaterial. This is also clear from the notings made by the Special
Medical Board on 11.01.2017 who have recorded that there was no
provision for temporary unfitness.
10. Examination of the petitioner after about three weeks at the General
Hospital in Naunaul on 7.09.2016 does not reflect and show the medical
WP(C) 10206/2016 Page 3
condition of the petitioner on date of examination by the Appeal Medical
Board on 29.07.2016. There was a gap of nearly one month. Similarly,
the re-examination by the Special Appeal Medical Board on 11.01.2017
would not indicate the medical condition of the petitioner on 29.07.2016.
11. The respondents, by the last order, were asked to obtain instructions
whether the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances can be considered
for enrolment. The respondents have stated that there are a number of
diseases or medical conditions which are curable, but these ailments
cannot be overlooked when the candidates are medically examined during
the recruitment process. At that stage, one cannot be certain whether or
not the ailment, when treated by medical or surgical procedure or by
medication would have the necessary and desired effect. The final
prognosis could vary from case to case and several factors can influence
the recovery process and extent of recovery.
12. Lastly, the respondent have correctly highlighted that the All India
Selection List was valid till 1.11.2016. The enlistment of the petitioner
was cancelled on 1.11.2016. Inducting the petitioner at this belated stage
on the basis of subsequent medical examination held in the Army Base
Hospital on 11.01.2017 would be contrary to recruitment rules and policy.
WP(C) 10206/2016 Page 4
We cannot also give any direction, that the petitioner should be enlisted
and included in the next select list as that would be a separate selection
process.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to accept the
prayers made by the petitioner. The writ petition along with pending
applications are dismissed. We are informed that the petitioner is still
eligible and not over age. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for fresh
selection, if eligible and in accordance with law.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017/umang
WP(C) 10206/2016 Page 5
