Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, SANJEEV NARULA, JJ.
Udbhav Kumar Jain - Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Delhi And Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 13807 of 2019 And C.M. No. 55473 of 2019
Decided On : 02-03-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Gagan Kumar Singhal, Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rhishabh Jetley and Mr. Naman Jain, Advocates for respondent No.1/ DHC. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2/ GNCTD
The right to life and liberty of a person cannot be denied or depleted only on account of his medical condition, when such medical condition is not such as to interfere with his normal functioning on the post for which he has offered his candidature, and he has been found to be otherwise competent for selection.
Headnote:
MEDICAL FITNESS - JUDICIAL OFFICER APPOINTMENT - Delhi Judicial Service Rule, 1970, Rule 30, Rule 33, Appendix III of the Civil Services Examination, (CSE) Rules - The court allowed the petition, directing the respondents not to reject the petitioner’s candidature only on account of his being declared medically “unfit” by the communications issued by the AAAG Hospital and LN Hospital. The petitioner would retain his notional seniority along with his other batch mates, though he would not be entitled to any back wages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to appoint him as a Judicial Officer to the Delhi Judicial Service against the vacancy for which he was declared “selected”. He was declared medically unfit due to a renal transplant conducted in 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, stating that the petitioner's medical condition did not interfere with his normal functioning as a Judicial Officer and that the rule declaring candidates with transplanted organs as 'unfit' was archaic and unjustified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be rejected on the grounds of being medically unfit due to a renal transplant, despite being declared selected for the position of Judicial Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rule declaring candidates with transplanted organs as 'unfit' was archaic and unjustified in the wake of medical advancements. It emphasized that the right to life and liberty of a person cannot be denied or depleted only on account of his medical condition, when such medical condition is not such as to interfere with his normal functioning on the post for which he has offered his candidature, and he has been found to be otherwise competent for selection.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents not to reject the petitioner’s candidature only on account of his being declared medically “unfit” by the communications issued by the AAAG Hospital and LN Hospital. The petitioner would retain his notional seniority along with his other batch mates, though he would not be entitled to any back wages.
JUDGMENT :
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and proceed to dispose of the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction to the respondents to appoint him as a Judicial Officer to the Delhi Judicial Service against the vacancy for which he was declared “selected” vide public notice dated 21.05.2019, with all consequential benefits. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to produce the medical examination record of the petitioner, conducted by Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi (AAAG Hospital) and Lok Nayak Hospital (LN Hospital).
3. The background facts are that respondent No. 1, i.e. High Court of Delhi invited applications vide notice dated 13.11.2018 for filling up of 50 vacancies in the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS). There was a corrigendum issued on 19.11.2018 in relation to the number of vacancies. The same was revised upwardly to 147. In relation to the General Category, 112 seats were notified and the others were for reserved categories such as SC and ST. The petitioner filled his on-line application as a General Category candidate. The preliminary examination for the said recruitment process was held on 13.01.2019. The petitioner was shortlisted when the results were declared on 02.02.2019. Thereafter, he appeared for the main examination conducted on 09.02.2019 and 10.02.2019. Vide notice issued on 30.04.2019, he was declared qualified – having secured 447 marks out of 850 marks. The petitioner was called for viva-voce examination to be held on 14.05.2019 before an interview panel of three Hon”ble Judges of this Court. On 21.05.2019, vide a public notice, this Court released the list of selected candidates in order of merit on the basis of their performance in the written examination and viva-voce. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 50 with a total score of 563 marks out of 1000 marks along with 125 other selected candidates. The petitioner accepted the offer of appointment made to him. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for medical examination. He presented himself for medical examination at AAAG Hospital, Delhi on 17.07.2019. The petitioner’s case was referred to the Nephrologist at LN Hospital to seek his opinion regarding the petitioner’s fitness and for detailed examination post renal transplant. The petitioner has disclosed that he had undergone renal transplant, which was successfully conducted on 11.05.2015 and since then, the petitioner has been regularly following up with his doctor, namely, Dr. (Prof.) Ashwani Gupta, Vice Chairman, Nephrology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and he is regularly receiving medications for the same. In pursuance of the reference made to the Nephrologist at LN Hospital, he was called for medical examination on 05.08.2019. It appears that the petitioner was not aware of the report prepared by the Nephrologist when he filed the petition. Since the petitioner did not receive any definite news with regard to his appointment, he made a representation and the same was followed up by a reminder. In this background, he has preferred this petition.
4. The case of the petitioner is that despite his renal transplant– conducted way back in 2015, he is leading a normal life and is taking the prescribed medications there for. The petitioner submits that the said transplant could not be claimed to be a reason to medically disqualify him, since the said transplant and the petitioner’s present medical condition has absolutely no bearing on the discharge of the duties and responsibilities that the petitioner would be required to perform as a Judicial Officer.
5. The writ petition was taken up by this Court on 24.12.2019. This Court had then directed that the filling up of existing vacancies, if any, in relation to the examination in question would be subject to further orders in the writ petition. On 24.01.2020, this Court noticed the fact that the petitioner was firstly medically examined on
