Patna High Court
Shyam Kishor Kumar vs The Union Of India on 7 January, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.409 of 2021
======================================================
Shyam Kishor Kumar, Son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village
Panhas, Post Suhird Nagar, Police Station Nagar Thana, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Govind
Apartment, Jeevan Vihar Colony Telebandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
4. The Chairman Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
For the UoI : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. C.G.C.
Mrs. Kanak Verma, C.G.C.
For the S.S.C. : Mr. Radhika Raman, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-01-2025
Heard Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Senior
Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned Senior C.G.C.
with Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned C.G.C., for the Union of India
and Mr. Radhika Raman, learned Advocate for the Staff
Selection Commission.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders as
contained in Letters No. आर०दो-01/2019-सथा-6 dated 07.07.2020
as well as dated 20.10.2020, whereby the petitioner has been
declared unfit and accordingly his candidature has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
2/14
rejected. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a direction to
restore his candidature and allow him to join the Force on the
post of Constable (GD).
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, in the year
2015, the Staff Selection Commission vide Advertisement dated
24.01.2015
, invited applications for selection against vacancy
for General Duty (Constable) under different Forces. The
petitioner having found himself eligible submitted his
application. Resultantly, he appeared for test conducted and
qualified the physical test held in the month of May 2015.The
petitioner further appeared in the written examination on
04.10.2015 and secured 153rd rank in the merit list. In terms of
the position in the merit list, the petitioner has been allocated
Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'the CRPF'). Upon final
publication of the result, when the petitioner has not been called
upon to join or any appointment letter has been issued, the
matter was enquired and the petitioner came to learn that his
candidature has been kept in the category of suspect list due to
suspicion raised over his signature/handwriting/left thumb
impression taken at the time of medical examination, did not
match with the signature/handwriting/left thumb impression
already available with the dossier of the recruitment records.
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent
no.3. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted all the
required papers and completed the dossier as directed by the
concerned respondent.
4. The respondent authorities, in order to get it
verified, sent the matter to Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Bhopal. Finally, the candidature of the petitioner was found
genuine vide verification report dated 03.10.2019. Subsequent
to which, offer of appointment for the post of Constable (GD)
was issued vide letter dated 15.02.2020. The petitioner has
further been directed to appear before the Medical Board for
physical test. In the medical test, the petitioner was found
"overweight with Tachy Cardia" and, as such, he was declared
unfit. The case of the petitioner was referred to Joint Hospital
Central Reserve Police Force, Bilaspur. The Medical Board has
further found the petitioner overweight and accordingly the
impugned letter dated 07.07.2020 has been issued, whereby the
candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a detailed
representation vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition, however, the
same came to be rejected vide order as contained in Letter dated
20.10.2020, which order has also been put to challenge by filing
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021.
6. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. P. N. Shahi, for the
petitioner, while assailing the impugned action and the orders of
the respondent authorities, has vehemently contended that the
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is wholly illegal
and arbitrary based upon unsustainable ground of being
overweight, which is not permanent in nature. The laches, if
any, is occurred on the part of the respondent authorities
consuming five years even after declaration of result, in the
name of verification of signature/handwriting/thumb impression
and later on when the apprehension of the selection agency has
been ruled, rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the
ground of overweight is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
Admittedly, the petitioner was declared physically fit and on
being qualified in the written examination, his name was figured
in the merit list of selected candidates. Had the petitioner been
allowed to join on the selected post, soon after the publication of
the result, no ground of being overweight could have arisen.
Keeping the matter pending for verification of
signature/handwriting/left thumb impression for over a pretty
long years, the petitioner cannot be said to be faulted.
7. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
Recruitment Guidelines, 2008 which specifically grants ten
weeks time to the person(s) whose body weight is more than
10% but less than 20% over and above the ideal weight, the
copy of which has also been brought on record by way of
Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It is the contention of the
learned Senior Advocate that the Recruitment Guidelines, 2008
has also been violated by the respondent authorities in
straightway rejecting the candidature of the petitioner without
giving sufficient time to lose his weight.
8. While drawing the attention of the impugned order,
it is further contended by the learned Senior Advocate that the
candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled in terms of
para-5(b) of the पत्र सं खया आर०दो-15/2014-भरती (ननदर श) dated
07.04.2020, which is quite surprising when the impugned
decision to cancel the candidature itself has been taken on
19.03.2020, this clearly shows non-application of mind. It is
lastly contended that though in the first round of physical test,
the weight of the petitioner was shown as 73 Kg. and thus on
being found, physically fit, he was declared a successful
candidate but subsequently the petitioner was declared unfit due
to his overweight by showing his weight as 78 Kg. Thus, in
terms of Standing Order No. 04/2008, the petitioner should be
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
allowed a chance to reduce his weight within ten weeks. Since
the delay and laches are on the part of the respondent
authorities, therefore, rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner on the grounds afore-noted, is wholly unjust is the
contention of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
9. Per contra, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned
Advocate for the Union of India, has confronted the submissions
of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner with all vigorous
and submitted that the medical examination, pursuant to which
the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, the same is in
accordance with the instructions contained in DIGP (Rectt),
Directorate, New Delhi, Letter dated 07.04.2014, which was
erroneously mentioned as dated 07.04.2020. The cancellation of
candidature of the petitioner was carried out with due process,
in transparent manner and after giving ample opportunity to the
petitioner as per the Guidelines. The medical and physical
fitness are prime importance for any Forces, hence, it cannot be
compromised. If the petitioner was so eager to join the CRPF, he
should kept himself physically fit and up to the required
standards but he failed in doing so.
10. The qualification requirement pertaining to the
weight is in connection with the conditions envisaged in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
official advertisement for recruitment. Upon verification of the
signature/handwriting/left thumb impression by the Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, the petitioner was again
allowed to appear in the medical examination, wherein he has
been found unfit for the post of Constable (GD) as he has been
adjudged overweight by the Board of Medical Officer. It is
further contended that now the entire process of selection in
terms of Advertisement dated 24.01.2015 has already come to
an end and there is no post vacant of Constable (GD) to be
offered to the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on the
judgments rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 1879 of 2012
[The Union of India and Others v. Vikash Kumar], C.W.J.C.
No. 19986 of 2011 [Mukesh Kumar Tiwari v. The Union of
India and Others] and C.W.J.C. No. 17813 of 2016 [Nilesh
Pal v. The Union of India and Others], wherein the learned
Court upheld the decision of Review Medical Examination
Board.
11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the parties and
also meticulously perused the materials available on record.
12. The question for consideration before this Court
can be summarized in an issue as to whether the respondents'
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
failure to accord the benefit of ten weeks period to reduce
overweight to the petitioner in terms of Recruitment Guidelines,
2008, constitutes a violation of procedural fairness; all the more,
when the action of the respondents suffers from delay and
laches of nearly five years in completing the recruitment process
and issuing the offer of appointment, causing prejudice to the
petitioner's rightful candidature. In other words, as to whether
the petitioner was given sufficient and reasonable opportunity to
meet the fitness standards before cancellation of his candidature;
and the Guidelines relied upon by the respondents, particularly
para-5(b) of the letter dated 07.04.2014 was applicable and
enforceable at the time of petitioner's selection and medical
examination.
13. With reference to the issue afore-noted, primarily
this Court finds that admittedly respondent authorities on being
found the petitioner eligible to appear in the selection process
allowed him to participate in the medical as well as written
examination. The petitioner was qualified in the medical test as
well as in the written examination and thus he secured 153 rd
position in the merit list of selected candidates of Constable
(GD) and in terms of position in the merit list, he was allocated
CRPF. After completion of the selection process through the
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
Staff Selection Commission, the recruitment dossiers were
collected from the Regional Recruitment Centre and forwarded
to the office of GC, Raipur. After due scrutiny of recruitment
dossiers of the selected candidates, the candidature of some of
the selected candidates were found suspected and thus their
recruitment dossiers returned to the competent authority for
further follow up action. In case of the petitioner, his thumb
impression has been suspected and further his handwriting
during written test, on Admit Card and DME did not match.
Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, the petitioner was directed to
appear before the competent authority and submit necessary
documents and his specimen signature in order to verify the
same with signature and handwriting already available in the
recruitment dossier. The specimen signature and handwriting of
the petitioner were collected and forwarded to the Co-ordinator
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, MP vide letter
dated 02.11.2017. Finally, the Co-ordinator, CFSL, has
forwarded the verification report to GC, Raipur vide letter dated
11.11.2019. The aforesaid report has been marked as Annexure-
H to the counter affidavit. The report clearly demonstrates that
no mismatch has been found and the candidature of the
petitioner has been found to be genuine. On receipt of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
verification report and recruitment dossier, pursuant to the
direction of the DIGP (Rectt), Directorate, New Delhi, the GC,
Raipur, was directed to issue offer of appointment immediately
to the petitioner and accordingly as per the direction, the offer of
appointment was issued to him vide letter dated 15.02.2020
(Annexure-K to the counter affidavit).
14. The facts afore-noted clearly demonstrate that the
advertisement which was published way back in the year 2015
and upon being qualified, the final result was published in the
year 2017, to be more specific on 06.02.2017 but on the pretext
of verification, the matter remained pending for a pretty long
time of three years and finally the offer of appointment was
issued on 15.02.2020.
15. The delay as afore-noted, prima facie, appear to
be unreasonable, even if taken place on account of the
verification of the signature/thumb impression/handwriting, the
petitioner cannot be held to be at fault in any of the manner. The
respondent authorities, who had sent the
documents/dossier/specimen signature of the petitioner for
verification where the verification of the petitioner's candidature
has been turned out to be positive and in his favour, either the
petitioner would have been allowed him to join the post or in
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
case any medical test was required, he must be given a prior
notice in this regard with clear stipulation. Nonetheless, in
compliance to the offer of appointment, the petitioner was asked
to undergo a fresh medical test and in response thereto, he
ensured his presence, however, after due medical examination at
GC, Hospital, Raipur, the petitioner has further been referred to
Joint Hospital, CRPF, Bilaspur for review medical as he was
found overweight with Tachy Cardia and subsequently the
petitioner was declared medically unfit due to overweight.
16. In the case in hand, the petitioner had qualified the
preliminary medical examination initially in the year 2015,
which was relevant for his selection, however, after causing
delay of five years on the pretext of verification of the
candidature in offering appointment to him and then rejecting
his selection on the basis of the post medical examination
conducted after a huge delay of five years without giving him
sufficient opportunity to compete with the required standard, is
wholly arbitrary and unjustified.
17. This Court also finds substance in the submission
of the petitioner that once in terms of the Guidelines as
contained in Standing Order No. 04/2008 (Annexure-11), which
clearly stipulates that if body weight is more than 10% but less
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
than 20% over and above the ideal weight expected of the
height and age without any symptom/sign of metabolic
abnormality, the official will be advised, in writing to reduce his
weight within ten weeks under information to his controlling
officer; whereupon he/she shall be reassessed immediately on
completion of this period. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, in
terms of the policy decision as afore-noted, the respondent
authorities were also bound to provide one more opportunity
after ten weeks to the petitioner for further medical test but the
same has not been provided and the respondent authorities
straightway rejected the candidature of the petitioner.
18. Not granting reasonable opportunity in terms of
the guidelines for meeting the fitness standards, in the case in
hand, where the petitioner had already been selected on the
basis of written test and after proper medical examination, in the
opinion of this Court, would certainly amount to violation of the
procedural fairness.
19. So far the contention of the respondent authorities
that the candidature of the petitioner has been referred to the
Review Medical Board and on being found medically unfit
rejected in terms of para-5(b) of the letter dated 07.04.2014 is
concerned, it is needless to observe that the same is certainly
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
applicable to the process of selection of Constable (GD) but, in
the case in hand, where there is no laches on the part of the
petitioner and despite his selection, if the delay in verification of
candidature is caused, which is obviously attributable to the
Recruitment Agency or Forensic Science Laboratory; hence in
the facts of this case, the Recruitment Guidelines, 2008, cannot
be given a go by.
20. The decision relied upon by the learned Advocate
for the respondents in no uncertain terms held the primacy of
Medical Review Board and thus the High Court, in exercise of
its power of judicial review, ordinarily should not interfere with
the opinion of experts, unless there is some infirmity in the
process of medical examination. However, with all humility the
ruling as afore-noted, is not applicable in the special facts of the
case, which is quite distinguishable and already discussed in the
afore-going paragraphs.
21. Law is well settled that the case having special
facts and circumstances, must be dealt with utmost care and
caution so that no prejudice could be caused to the person who
had never been at fault.
22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the
issue framed in this case is answered accordingly. The orders as
Patna High Court CWJC No.409 of 2021 dt.07-01-2025
contained in Letters No.आर०दो-01/2019-सथा-6 dated 07.07.2020
as well as dated 20.10.2020 are, hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner to
appear in the medical examination with the prior notice in terms
of Recruitment Guidelines, 2008 as contained in Standing Order
No. 04/2008.
23. Suffice it to observe that in case, the petitioner is
found medically fit, he must be accorded fresh appointment
letter against any of the vacant and sanctioned post of Constable
(GD). In case, there is no vacant and sanctioned post in terms of
the Advertisement dated 24.01.2015, the petitioner shall be
adjusted against future vacancy which has arisen during the
interregnum period, keeping in view the distinct facts of this
case.
24. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.01.2025
Transmission Date
