Delhi High Court
Pramit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 September, 2018
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8752/2018 & C.M. No. No.33627/2018 (for stay)
PRAMIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Mr.Vyom
Raghuvanshi & Ms.Sangya Negi,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 19.09.2018
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for
issuing directions to the respondent no.2/Sashatra Seema Bal (SSB) to
permit him to undergo a Review Medical Board and if he qualifies therein,
include his name for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector in the Delhi
Police, CAPF (direct entry), subject matter of examination conducted by the
respondents in June, 2017.
2. A glance at the facts of the case is considered necessary. In June,
2017, the respondent No.3/SSC had issued an advertisement for recruitment
of Sub Inspectors in the Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub Inspectors
in the Recruitment Examination, 2017. The petitioner had applied for
participating in the said examination and cleared the written examination as
also the Physical Endurance Test/Physical Standard Test between July, 2017
to October, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner had appeared in Paper-II on
19.03.2018, where he was declared provisionally qualified for appearing in
the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), for which he had appeared on
13.04.2018. On 14.04.2018, the petitioner was informed by the respondents
that he was found unfit on the ground of being overweight by 7 kgs and on
account of suffering from DNS [Deviation towards (lt)].
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed an appeal and enclosed
therewith, a medical certificate obtained from the Government Hospital
which stated that the DNS has been rectified on undergoing surgery.
Pertinently, the said surgery was done on 24.04.2018. However, the
respondents did not permit the petitioner to undergo a Review Medical
Board. When the respondents declared the list of rejected candidates on
06.08.2018, along with the reasons furnished therein, the petitioner
discovered that his name was included in the said list with a remark that his
candidature was rejected being a post operative case. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner has filed the present petition within one week, on 14.08.2018.
4. On the last date of hearing, we had requested Mr.Bhardwaj, learned
counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions from the department.
Today, learned counsel hands over the "Guidelines for Recruitment Medical
Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles" issued by
the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division-II), as
revised as on May, 2015. A perusal of the said Guidelines reveals that
„Minor Acceptable Defects‟ has been listed in para 7 and sub para (i) thereof
states that „mild and moderate DNS with both nasal airways patient may not
be rejected‟.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while declaring the
petitioner as unfit at the time of issuing the impugned memorandum dated
14.04.2018, the respondents had not specified as to whether he was suffering
from a mild or moderate DNS and the observation made was limited to
mentioning that the petitioner was suffering from DNS. She contends that,
in any event, the petitioner had undergone a surgery for correction of DNS
on 24.04.2018 and going by the very same Guidelines in Para 11 whereof, it
has been clarified that the duration for fitness for any post operative cases
relating to DNS and Nasal Polypectomy, would be one month, the petitioner
ought to have been examined on expiry of one month. She submits that in
terms of the aforesaid Guidelines, the petitioner would have been fit for
undergoing a Review Medical Board within one month reckoned from
24.04.2018, the date of his surgery, i.e., by 23.05.2018 whereas the list of
non-selected candidates was declared by the respondents, much later on
16.08.2018.
6. In view of the captioned Guidelines issued by the respondents, we are
of the opinion that the respondents ought to have afforded an opportunity to
the petitioner to appear before a Review Medical Board after 23.05.2018 i.e.
on expiry of one month after he had undergone a surgery for DNS, for
examining him qua the grounds mentioned in the impugned memorandum
dated 14.04.2018 and if he was not found fit, only then turned down his
candidature. In our view, any rejection prior thereto by refusing to grant
him an opportunity to appear before the Review Medical Board was not
justified or in consonance with the own Guidelines laid down by the
respondents.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned list
dated 06.08.2018 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to call the petitioner for a Review Medical Board
within four weeks under written intimation to him. The petitioner shall
appear in the Review Medical Board at the venue and on the date and time
as conveyed. In case, the petitioner is found fit, he shall be appointed to the
subject post based on his merit position in the selection process. The entire
process shall be completed within eight weeks.
8. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
gm
