Delhi High Court
Amit Kumar vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 4 June, 2021
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4741/2021 and CM Mo. 17463/2021 (for early hearing)
AMIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Bhavana Duhoon, Adv
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Baliyan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 04.06.2021
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The petitioner, a candidate in the recruitment of November, 2020 of
Airmen, filed this petition impugning the findings of the Medical Board and
the Appeal Medical Board, of the petitioner being 'unfit' for appointment.
2. Vide order dated 31st May, 2021, the records of medical examination
of the petitioner as well as the concerned Medical Manual were directed to
be produced.
3. The counsel for the respondents states that the requisite documents
have been filed in the Court.
4. The same have been perused by us.
5. The petitioner, after examination on 30th December, 2020, was
declared 'unfit' by the Medical Board, on three grounds i.e. (i) being
overweight; (ii) being unable to squat; and, (iii) suffering from
Hyperbilirubinemia.
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal and as per the documents produced
by the respondents, the Appeal Medical Board reported, that (i) the weight
of the petitioner was 80 kgs as against the standard body weight
corresponding to the age and height of the petitioner, of 63 kgs; (ii) that the
bilirubin count of the petitioner was 2.2 mg and that the petitioner, on 5th
February, 2021 failed to appear before the expert for the test of squatting.
7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is, that the Appeal
Medical Board only conducted the blood test of the petitioner and did not
take the weight of the petitioner and did not make the petitioner squat. With
respect to the bilirubin count of the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention to the reports of the blood test got done by the petitioner
on 4th March, 2021 from Maharishi Valmiki Hospital Pooth Khurd and on
8th March, 2021 from Health Care Diagnostics Centre, Bawana, Delhi,
showing the bilirubin count of the petitioner to be 0.6 mg/dl i.e., within the
permissible limits.
8. Having not found the petitioner, in the petition to have pleaded, what
according to him his weight was on the date of the examination by the
Medical Board and/or on the date of examination by the Appeal Medical
Board, we have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner about the same
and also asked the counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner got his
weight measured at any hospital, at the contemporaneous time.
9. The counsel for the petitioner confirms that there is no pleading or
document in this respect and states that she will have to take instructions.
10. Once the petition concerning recruitment has been filed and does not
make a material plea and/or does not controvert the reason given by the
Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board, the inference is that the
petitioner is not controverting the said finding of the Medical Board/Appeal
Medical Board. The petitioner is thus not found to be controverting the
finding of the Appeal Medical Board, that the weight of the petitioner on
30th December, 2020 was 83 kgs and on 1st March, 2021 was 80 kgs.
11. The counsel for the respondents has also drawn our attention to the
ideal weights prescribed in the Manual of Medical Examination and Medical
Boards, 4th Edition, September, 2010, in which, for the height of the
petitioner of 178 cm and age of the petitioner of 19 years, the ideal body
weight prescribed is of 63 kgs with a margin of 6.3 kgs. Thus the petitioner
could have been found 'fit', had his weight been up to a maximum of 69.3
kgs. However the weight of the petitioner, as per the records produced, on
the date of the examination by the Medical Board as well as by the Appeal
Medical Board was way above i.e., 83 kgs and 80 kgs respectively. The
petitioner on the said ground alone was not entitled to be recruited.
12. Since one ground is enough for this petition to be dismissed, we are
not opting to go into other two grounds of rejection. Suffice it to say that, (i)
the petitioner, without imputing any mala fides to the Officers constituting
the Medical Board/Appeal Medical Board, cannot controvert their findings
as to having weighed the petitioner; reference in this regard can be made to
Hari Kumar Vs. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2464, Priti Yadav
Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951 (DB), Order/Judgment dated
2nd June, 2021 in W.P.(C)5717/2021 titled Sachin Vs. Union of India and
Aman Yadav Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/0944/2021, and, (ii) once the
Medical Board as well as the Appeal Medical Board, on examination of the
blood sample of the petitioner have found the bilirubin count to be above
that prescribed, merely because another hospital has found the count to be
otherwise, again cannot be a ground for referring the petitioner to another
round of examination; reference in this regard may be made to Priti Yadav
supra, Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924,
Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1486/2020, Jonu Tiwari Vs
Union of India MANU/DE/1524/2020 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
13492/2020 preferred thereagainst dismissed on 17th December, 2020],
Vani Vishwanathan Vs Union of India MANU/DE/1678/2020 [Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12682/2020 preferred thereagainst dismissed on
5th January, 2021], Nishant Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2022/2020,
Akash Sharma Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2069/2020, Paridhi
Chauhan Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2288/2020 and Aman Yadav
supra.
13. There is no merit in the writ petition.
14. Dismissed.
15. The next date scheduled in the petition stands cancelled.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
JUNE 4, 2021
SU..
