Delhi High Court
Bharpur Hooda vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2022
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 13082/2021 & CM 41270/2021
BHARPUR HOODA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Aayushman Aeron, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Akshay Amritanshu,
Mr.Vinny Shangloo, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
result of the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, 'DME') of the
petitioner conducted on 21.10.2021 as well as the result of the Review
Medical Examination (in short, 'RME') dated 25.10.2021. The
petitioner further prays for direction to the respondents to conduct a
fresh DME for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the notice inviting
applications for the post of 'Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, CAPFs
and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination 2019'. The
petitioner, upon clearing the Physical Endurance Test and Physical
Standards Test (PET & PST), was invited for his DME at the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:16.01.2022
Composite Hospital, CRPF, GC Campus Golf Course Road, Ajmer,
Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'CH CRPF').
3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the DME conducted on
21.10.2021, he was found unfit on three grounds, which are as
follows:
i) Overweight (7 kg);
ii) Squint
iii) DNS (Rt) Side i.e. Deviated Nasal Septum (Right Side).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DME
result did not mention the recorded height and weight of the petitioner,
and as to what height had been considered and what the actual weight
of the petitioner was while declaring the petitioner to be overweight
by 7 kg.
5. Aggrieved by the result of the DME, the petitioner applied for
his RME, which was to be held on 22.10.2021 at CH CRPF. Vide the
result of the RME, which was declared on 25.10.2021, the petitioner
was found medically fit on two grounds, that is, squint and DNS but
was still found medically unfit on the ground of being overweight.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
'Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPF and
Assam Rifles' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Guidelines') issued in
the year 2015 to submit that a variation of 5 kgs was to be accepted.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the declaration of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:16.01.2022
the petitioner as 'Unfit' is therefore, incorrect and is liable to be set
aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner having been found overweight, has been
rightly declared 'Unfit' for appointment.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties. Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines as on May,
2015 inter-alia prescribe the following standards for weight:
"2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR
RECRUITMENT BOARD.
xxx
(d) Measurement of physical standards viz. height,
weight, and chest is the responsibility of the Physical
Standard Test Board (PST Board) for all categories of
candidates i.e GOs, SOs and Ors. Medical officers will
not be part of PST board both for Male & Female
candidates. Since presence of a female is required at
the time of recording of physical standard (PST), a
female non medical staff may be associated with PST
board. Recruiting medical officer need not record to
physical measurements. Recruiting medical officer will
mention physical standard in the medical examination
form as recorded by the PST board. In borderline
cases of overweight, BMI should also be considered to
arrive at conclusion and variation of 5Kg +/- from the
minimum/maximum limit may be accepted. Similarly
while measuring height fraction of cm less that 0.5 will
be ignored and 0.5 cm & more will be rounded off to
the next higher cm. Standard height weight chart is
attached at ANNEXURE-I."
9. A reading of the above clause would show that in borderline
cases, the Body Mass Index (in short, 'BMI') of the applicant is to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:16.01.2022
considered. The borderline cases are prescribed as being in variance of
5 kg from the maximum or minimum limit. The standard
height/weight chart, which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the
writ petition, details the weight range at various heights. The
respondent does not deny that the petitioner's weight at the time of
RME was not exceeding more than 5 kgs of the maximum weight
prescribed for his height and his BMI was also within permissible
limit.
10. This Court, in its judgment dated 17.12.2021 in Pankaj Kumar
v Central Reserve Police Force and Ors., W.P.(C) 13134/2021,
relying upon Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines, had also reversed the
finding of the petitioner therein being deemed medically unfit on the
ground of being overweight.
11. In view of Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines, we find that the
petitioner could not have been declared medically unfit. Accordingly,
the findings of the RME declaring the petitioner as 'Unfit' for
appointment, is set aside. The respondents are directed to process the
application of the petitioner further, in accordance with law.
12. The petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall
be no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 11, 2022/AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:16.01.2022
