Delhi High Court
Sh. Chaman Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 October, 2018
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11197/2018 & C.M.No.43470/2018 (exemption)
SH. CHAMAN KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Yomesh Dutt Sharma with
Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC with
Mr.Ankit Tyagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 16.10.2018
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for
quashing of the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the respondent
no.3/Indian Navy, whereunder he has been declared medically 'unfit'
for recruitment to the post of Sailor in the Indian Navy on the ground
of having 'keloid on his right leg'.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in May, 2015, the
respondents had issued an advertisement inviting applications for
recruitment of Sailors for Artificer Apprentice -139 Batch, 2016. The
petitioner had applied in response to the said advertisement on
18.06.2015 and had appeared in the written examination, physical and
preliminary medical examination conducted by the respondents.
3. Vide letter dated 23.12.2015, the petitioner was informed that
he had been provisionally selected for the subject post and he was
directed to appear for the final medical examination at the
Recruitment Office of the respondents situated in Chilka, Odissa. The
petitioner appeared in the medical examination on 15.02.2016 and
vide order dated 18.02.2016, he was declared 'unfit' on the ground of
having a 'keloid on his right leg'.
4. Aggrieved by the said report, the petitioner submitted a request
for a re-medical examination on 25.02.2016. However vide order
dated 28.03.2016, the respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that
there was no provision in the Indian Navy for conducting a re-medical
examination and no plea for review is permitted after the final
enrolment examination is conducted.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner as stated in para 6 of the
writ petition that in April, 2016, he had got himself examined by a
Skin Specialist at the District Government Hospital, Mathura, where
no such disorder of 'Keloid' was diagnosed and instead, the Doctor
who had examined him had stated that he does not require any
treatment.
6. We may note no such report of the concerned Doctor at the
District Government Hospital, Mathura has been enclosed with the
present petition. We have enquired from learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether he can produce the said report. He, however,
expresses his inability to do so and states that the petitioner has
misplaced the said document.
7. Learned counsel further states that on 11.08.2018, the petitioner
had approached the Doctor at AIIMS, Delhi for a medical opinion and
he had opined that the scar on the right leg of the petitioner, is an old
injury and not a keloid.
8. Armed with the aforesaid report the petitioner had submitted a
letter dated 18.08.2018 to the respondents seeking a review medical
examination. On 08.10.2018, the petitioner received a letter dated
28.09.2018 from the respondent no.2 stating inter alia that once he
had been declared 'unfit' by the specialist during the medical check-
up conducted on him, no review is permissible. It was also stated that
over two years had elapsed and therefore, even otherwise, his request
for a review medical board could not be entertained.
9. We have requested learned counsel for the petitioner to explain
the reasons for a delay of almost two and a half year in approaching
the Court for relief and that too in a case where the petitioner is
seeking recruitment. Except for stating that the petitioner was
unaware of the nature of legal remedy available to him, there is no
explanation offered by the counsel for the petitioner to explain such
an inordinate delay.
10. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition on two
counts. Firstly, on the ground of unexplained and unreasonable delay
and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for
relief and secondly, on the ground that counsel for the petitioner is
unable to produce the report of the Skin Specialist at the District
Government Hospital, Mathura, according to which, as per the
learned counsel, it had been diagnosed in April, 2016 that the
petitioner was not suffering from any disorder as noted by the
respondents.
11. In the absence of any material documents, there is no way to
establish at this belated stage as to whether the petitioner was actually
suffering from the ailment in question in the year 2016, when he had
been declared 'unfit' by the respondents for the subject post.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed alongwith
the pending application. It is however, clarified that in the event the
petitioner applies in response to any fresh recruitment drive that may
be undertaken by the respondents in the future, his having been
medically declared 'unfit' in respect of the advertisement issued in
May, 2015 will not be an impediment. In case the petitioner applies
afresh, he shall be medically examined at that relevant point in time
and a decision shall be taken by the respondents based on the said
examination.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
OCTOBER 16, 2018
sr
