Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA AND NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ.
RAVI KUMAR - PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS - RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) 3208 of 2016
Decided On : 24-05-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, with Mr. Surender Kumar, Satya Prakash Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the circular dated 17th November, 2003, regarding the requirement for a fresh medical examination after initial fitness for appointment.
Headnote:
Recruitment - Medical Examination - Circular dated 17th November, 2003 - The court remitted the matter to the Review Medical Board for fresh examination of the petitioner in terms of circular dated 17th November, 2003. The parameters fixed in the said circular would be kept in mind. The Review Medical Board to be appointed should consist of Doctors/Specialists who have not earlier examined the petitioner. The respondents were directed to refer the petitioner to the Army R&R Hospital, Delhi for the purpose of Review Medical Board. In case the petitioner is found fit, re-appointment order in accordance with law will be issued.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for recruitment as Constable (GD) and was declared fit and eligible for appointment. However, he was not appointed due to not indicating his preference in the application form. After a writ petition, the petitioner was included in the select list and issued an appointment letter. After joining, he was declared medically unfit due to poor distant vision, which was contested by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court remitted the matter to the Review Medical Board for fresh examination of the petitioner in terms of circular dated 17th November, 2003. The Review Medical Board to be appointed should consist of Doctors/Specialists who have not earlier examined the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found fit, re-appointment order in accordance with law will be issued.
Issues: The primary contention was the petitioner's challenge to the requirement for a fresh medical examination after being initially declared fit for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the circular dated 17th November, 2003, which allowed for a re-medical examination if there was a time gap between the initial medical examination and the date of joining, restricted to detecting any disease, disability, accident, or injury acquired during the intervening period.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Review Medical Board for a fresh examination of the petitioner. If found fit, a re-appointment order would be issued.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The petitioner Ravi Kumar had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD), in the selection process which was conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad. This selection process was initiated vide advertisement published in the year 2011.
2. On clearing Physical Endurance Test and Physical Standard Test, the petitioner had appeared in the written examination. On the basis of the marks secured, the petitioner had qualified for appointment as Constable (GD) in Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force and Sashastra Seema Bal. He was asked to undergo medical examination. He was declared fit and eligible for appointment. However, the petitioner was not appointed as he had not indicated his preference in Column 17 of his application form and had left the said column blank.
3. The selection process became subject matter of a writ petition filed by the petitioner and other candidates in the High Court of Allahabad. Similar challenges were also made by the non-selected candidates before this Court. WP(C) No.8004/2014 and others filed before the Delhi High Court were allowed vide order dated 21st November, 2014 with certain directions. The order refers to an earlier decision dated 14th December, 2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7651/2012. The operative portion with the directions reads:
“In the light of the said decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs and by following the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14th December, 2012, passed in WP(C) No.7651/2012, this Court disposed off a batch of the said writ petitions making a note that the grievance of these petitioners who were being denied appointment only because of the fact that they had left column No.17 blank or had not properly recorded their preference in the said form in terms of the order dated 16th May, 2014, although they were higher in merit stands redressed. The relevant part of the said judgment is also reproduced as under:-
“In the light of the said decision taken by the respondents, the grievance of all these petitioners who were being denied appointment only because of the fact that they left column No.17 blank or did not properly indicate their preference in the said form in terms of the order dated 16th May, 2014, although they were higher in merit stands redressed. The petitioners would be required to give their unconditional undertaking to the effect that they shall not claim any seniority or any consequential benefit qua those who are placed in the select list or the reserve list. These petitioners shall be filing their undertakings within a period of two weeks and the SSC shall carry out the entire exercise of allocating these petitioners to the respective forces within a period of two months as an upper limit.”
We are completely at loss and flabbergasted to know that despite the mandamus in rem being directed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14th December, 2012, almost two years back, yet similarly placed petitioners are approaching this Court still. One of the prima purposes of issuing a general mandamus was that the Court is not flooded with a spate of Writ petitions but the said object and spirit of the order, as usual, has been defeated by the respondents. To our utter surprise in such like cases, instead of conceding to the prayer of the petitioners, the respondents chose to oppose the writ petitions on flimsy and untenable grounds and such kind of approach being adopted by the respondents cannot be appreciated. We thus, allow the present writ petition filed by the petitioners and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the select list and subject to their fulfilling all other eligibility conditions, the petitioners be issued with an appointment letter to the post of Constable/GD in BSF, CISF, CRPF or SSB, ITBP or Assam Rifles.
With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands
