Delhi High Court
Vikash vs Union Of India And Anr. on 10 November, 2020
$-VC-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 10th November, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 2333/2020
VIKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Akesh Swami, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Jayant Bhatt, senior panel
counsel with Ms.Nayantara
Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM APPL. 28581/2020 (of the petitioner for early hearing)
1. The counsel for the respondents Sashastra Seem Bal (SSB) appears
on advance notice.
2. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and disposed of
and the writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself.
W.P.(C) 2333/2020
3. It is the plea of the petitioner in the application aforesaid, that
though the writ petition came up before the Court first on 3rd March, 2020
but the Bench before which it was listed did not assemble and the writ
petition was adjourned to 16th March, 2020, since when, owing to the
prevalent pandemic, the petition is being adjourned. It is thus obvious
that notice even of the petition has not been issued.
4. On a reading of the petition we did not find any merit therein and
have thus heard the counsel for the petitioner at length, on admission.
5. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, (i) that he was a candidate
for recruitment to the Group-C Non Gazetted (Combatised) posts in the
respondents SSB, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2016;
(ii) that he is a domicile of Haryana and belongs to OBC category; (iii)
that the recruitment comprised of Physical Efficiency Test (PET),
Physical Standard Test (PST), Verification of Documents, Written
Examination / Assessment and detailed Medical Examination; (iv) the
petitioner cleared all the successive stages and undertook the Medical
Examination at SSB Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh on 5th December, 2017; (v)
in the said Medical Examination, the petitioner was declared unfit on the
ground of "GROSS DNS" i.e. deviated nasal septum; (vi) the petitioner
got himself medically examined at a Government hospital namely
Chaudhary Bansilal Hospital, Bhiwani, Haryana, on 7th December, 2017,
where the Medical Officer, ENT found the petitioner fit and opined error
in the judgment of the Medical Test conducted by SSB on account of
DNS to Rfide; (vii) the petitioner, in order to get a second opinion, got
himself admitted on 18th December, 2017 at Pandit B.D. Sharma Post
Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana and on 19th
December, 2017 was successfully operated upon for Septoplasty LA and
was discharged on 21st December, 2017; (viii) the petitioner thereafter
appealed against the decision of the Medical Board of the respondents
SSB and was called for Review Medical Examination on 31st March,
2018, where he was again declared unfit on account of "Gran-DNB" and
the Review Medical Board further found the petitioner to be having a
Mucous Retention Cyst; and, (ix) the petitioner through counsel sent a
representation dated 21st December, 2018 to the respondents SSB and to
which the respondents SSB sent a reply received by the petitioner on 23rd
January, 2019.
6. Impugning the rejection from recruitment for the reason of being
found medically unfit, this petition dated 17th February, 2020, affidavit
accompanying which is verified on 24th February, 2020, was preferred.
7. The petition came up first before the Court, as aforesaid, on 3rd
March, 2020.
8. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition inter alia is with
respect to the findings dated 5th December, 2017 of the Medical Board
and 31st March, 2018 of the Review Medical Board. Aggrieved from the
said findings, the petition was brought before this Court first on 3rd
March, 2020 i.e. after more than two years from the action from which
the petitioner was aggrieved. Not only so, the petitioner, for the first time
protested against the findings of the Review Medical Board, in
December, 2018 i.e. after 9 months. Further, a perusal of the petition
shows that though the petition was prepared and ready for filing in
March, 2019 but filed only by correcting the typed date of March, 2019 to
17th February, 2020, not only at the bottom of the petition but also on the
verification of the affidavit accompanying the petition.
9. Considering that the grievance urged in the petition is with respect
to elimination from recruitment sought and having not found any reason
pleaded in the petition for the long undue delay, we have enquired so
from the counsel for the petitioner.
10. The counsel for the petitioner states that "the petitioner was trying
otherwise in between". However, the only averment of trying otherwise,
is of sending a notice in December, 2018 and to which a response dated
23rd January, 2019 was received. From the date of the preparation of the
petition, it appears that though the petition was prepared soon thereafter
to be filed in March 2019, but the petitioner again sat over the matter for
nearly one year.
11. A perusal of the response dated 23rd January, 2019 to the legal
notice of December 2018 got sent by the petitioner shows the respondents
SSB to have informed the petitioner, (i) that total 34 vacancies were
published in the employment newspaper of 18th to 24th June, 2016 and
final result of those vacancies was declared and uploaded on SSB
recruitment website on 14th May, 2018; and, (ii) the last candidate
selected under the OBC category had secured 65 marks; though the
petitioner, also in the OBC category, had also secured 65 marks in the
written examination but was found unfit by the Review Medical Board.
12. It is evident from the aforesaid response that the result was
uploaded as far back as on 14th May, 2018. Those recruited would have
by now, not only completed their training, but must have also been given
postings. The petitioner now, after nearly 3 years, cannot be made to
join, even if any error was to be found in declaring him unfit, for a post
which was advertised as far back as in the year 2016. The petitioner not
only showed extreme delay in preferring the petition but even after the
functioning of the court has resumed in the prevalent pandemic, has
waited for over 6 months for seeking early hearing of the petition.
13. The petition is dismissed on account of delay, latches,
acquiescence and waiver.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
ASHA MENON
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 10, 2020
SU
