Delhi High Court
Hemant Kumar vs Chairman, Staff Selection ... on 13 March, 2018
$~17.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6940/2017 and CM APPL. 28856/2017
HEMANT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Kaushik, Advocate
versus
CHAIRMAN, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sushila Narang, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
% 13.03.2018
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for
directing the respondent No.1/SSC and respondent No.2/ITBP to constitute a
Medical Board to examine him for recruitment to the Delhi Police or the
CAPFs, if found fit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.01.2016, the respondent
No.1/SSC had published a notice in the Employment News, inviting
applications for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in the Delhi Police, CAPFs
and Assistant Sub-Inspector in the CISF Examination, 2016. The petitioner
had applied for the subject examination and had cleared the first phase of the
written examination and the second phase of physical efficiency test.
Thereafter, the petitioner's medical examination was conducted on
13.04.2017 at the Referral Hospital, CAPF, Greater Noida, where he was
declared medically unfit on account of three infirmities, i.e., "knock knee,
cubitus valus and left hand polydactyl (extra thumb)". Aggrieved by the
aforesaid decision, the petitioner applied for a Review Medical Board,
which was conducted on 15.07.2017, wherein he was declared fit for two
medical infirmities, i.e., "knock knee, cubitus valus", but was declared unfit
on account of "left hand polydactyl (extra thumb)".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the "Guidelines for
Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and
Assam Rifles", as revised in May, 2015 do not extend to the recruitments
made in the Delhi Police and the petitioner being a meritorious candidate,
having been placed at Sr.No.21 in the tentative merit list in the written
examination, had every reason to believe that he would be selected in the
Delhi Police but his case was turned down only on account of the fact that
he has an extra thumb of his left hand.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents counters the aforesaid
submission and submits that there are no separate Guidelines laid down by
the respondents for inducting/recruiting Sub Inspectors in the Delhi Police
and the said Guidelines have in fact been issued by the Ministry of Home
Affairs (Police Division-II) of the Government of India itself. The same
applies across the board for recruitment in all the CAPFs, including Sub
Inspectors in the Delhi Police. She draws the attention of the court to the
first page of the revised Guidelines, which states as below:-
"The medical fitness criteria have due allowances for the age of
the candidate yet it should be understood that the question of
fitness involve future as well as present and that one of the main
object of medical examination is to secure a continuous
effective service and to prevent early pension or payment due to
premature discharge from service or death. The instructions of
medical examination had been issued by MHA for Asstt.
Commandant, Sub Inspectors and Constable in CAPFs
separately and have been amended as and when need arose."
5. Counsel for the respondents explains that the candidature of the
petitioner was rejected on account of his medical infirmity, in terms of para
6(27) of the captioned Guidelines, which lays down the general grounds for
rejection and states that a candidate can be rejected if he is suffering from
"Polydactyl of hands/feet".
6. We have perused the Guidelines placed on record. The first page of
the said Guidelines titled "Acknowledgement", has not been enclosed by
learned counsel for the petitioner at Annexure P-6 (colly.). The same has
however been filed by learned counsel for the respondents alongwith the
counter affidavit and is marked as Annexure R-2 and the relevant extract has
been reproduced hereinabove. In view of the fact that the said Guidelines
have been applied uniformly for recruitment of Sub Inspectors in the Delhi
Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub Inspectors in the CISF Examination, 2016,
the petitioner cannot raise a grievance that he has been discriminated
against. Merely because the petitioner's first preference for recruitment was
Delhi Police, cannot mean that the said Guidelines that have been followed
by the respondents for selecting all the candidates irrespective of their
preference of a particular Force, would not apply to those who gave their
first preference for being recruited in the Delhi Police. The medical
standards fixed by the respondents for recruitment to the subject post are
common and identical in respect of all the candidates notwithstanding the
organisation for which they gave their preference and for which they have
been selected. Para 6(27) of the Guidelines specifies "Polydactyl of
hands/feet" as a medical condition which can be a ground to reject a
candidate.
7. That being the position, we find no ground for interference in the
impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as meritless
alongwith the pending application. No orders as to cost.
HIMA KOHLI, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
MARCH 13, 2018
rkb/na
