Delhi High Court
Sandeep Poswal vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 April, 2022
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 25th April, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 112/2022
SANDEEP POSWAL ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P. Jayanarayan & Mr. Pulkit
Aggarwal, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, Senior Central
Government Standing Counsel with
Head Constable.Surender Singh,
Government Pleader
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a
direction to set aside order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the respondent, vide
which his appeal to appear for medical test for appointment to the post of
Head Constable pursuant to Notification DAVP 19113/11/0004/1920, has
been rejected by the respondents. Further, a direction is sought to the
respondent to conduct re-medical examination of petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to aforesaid
notification, petitioner had applied for appointment of Head Constable in
CISF and pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 had issued a call letter calling
upon the petitioner to give weight/ height measurements on 18.02.2020.
Thereafter, petitioner was instructed to participate in the physical
examination on 19.02.2020. Upon being successful, petitioner was again
called upon to appear for medical test on 03.09.2021 and he appeared for the
same. However, on 04.09.2021, petitioner came to know that his candidature
for the post in question was rejected by the Medical Board due to reasons
stated as "Obesity". Aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection, petitioner is
stated to preferred an appeal in the prescribed form before the competent
authority, which was rejected vide communication dated 04.10.2021.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the
appeal of the petitioner has been rejected because the „RME appeal was not
signed by him and the requisite demand draft was not attached‟, however,
the demand draft was attached to the appeal and even if there was
negligence on petitioner‟s part, he should have been given to him to sign the
same, which was declined despite several requests.
4. To the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
submits that signing of appeal by appellant and enclosing of requisite fee by
way of demand draft were mandatory requirements and, there is no fault in
the order passed by the respondent.
5. The relevant Paras-3 and 5 of the impugned communication dated
04.10.2021 read as under:-
"03. Whereas, the appeal for RME is unsigned. Also
the required demand draft of Rs.25/-in favour of AC/
DDO 5th RB Ghaziabad is not enclosed together with
the appeal.
04. XXXX
05. Hence, your appeal for Review Medical
Examination is considered and rejected due to the
reasons mentioned in para No.03."
6. Pertinently, rejection of petitioner‟s candidature for the afore-
mentioned reasons is not disputed by learned counsel for respondents.
7. Upon hearing and on perusal of Paras-3 and 5 of the impugned
communication dated 04.10.2021, we find that the appeal of petitioner has
not been decided on merits and has rather been dismissed for afore-noted
reasons. We hereby set aside the impugned communication dated
04.10.2021 and dispose of the present petition giving liberty to the petitioner
to prefer a fresh appeal before the competent authority within two weeks,
which shall be considered and decided by the respondents as per applicable
rules and regulations within the statutory period. The fate of the appeal be
communicated to the appellant within two weeks of decisions thereon.
Needless to say, if any grievance still persists, petitioner is at liberty to
challenge it before the appropriate forum.
8. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2022/r
