Strict physical and medical standards for recruitment to the CAPFs must be adhered to, and the court cannot prescribe relaxation in the selection criteria.

ORDER

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral). - CM No.47820/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 15179/2021 & CM No.47821/2021

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') of the petitioner conducted on 22.10.2021. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to re-conduct the medical examination of the petitioner at any Government or Army Hospital in Delhi.

2. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the Notice inviting applications for 'Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination, 2019' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Notice'). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had cleared the SSC-CPO Tier-1 and Tier-2 Examinations as also the Physical Standard Test /Physical Endurance Test (PST/PET). The petitioner was thereafter subjected to a DME on 21.10.2021 at the Ajmer Centre, Rajasthan, wherein his weight was measured on an analog weighing machine and height was not measured, however, was declared unfit on account of being overweight. The petitioner contends that the DME report did not mention relevant particulars like the height and the weight of the petitioner or by how much the petitioner was found to be overweight. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this itself shows the arbitrary manner in which the DME was conducted by the respondents.

3. The petitioner further contends that in spite of paragraph 11.7 of the Notice providing a fifteen-day period to the candidate to make an appeal before the Review Medical Board (in short, 'RMB'), the petitioner was forced to submit his appeal on the very same day on which the DME was conducted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the said reason, the petitioner could not bring his weight within the permissible limit, thereby being denied an opportunity to be selected.

4. The petitioner further contends that in the RME conducted on 22.10.2021, his weight was checked on a digital weighing machine and height was again not measured. The petitioner was again declared unfit on the ground of being overweight. In the RME report, it was mentioned that the petitioner's height is 170 cm and weight is 74.5 kg resulting in a Body Mass Index (in short, 'BMI') of 25.07 kg/m2. The petitioner contends that the height of the petitioner is in-fact 172 cm, as would be evident from the reports of the Central Government Health Services (in short, 'CGHS'), Kingsway Camp, Delhi and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (in short, 'RML') Hospital, New Delhi. He submits that the petitioner had got himself examined at CGHS, Kingsway Camp, where his weight was found to be 72 kg with a BMI of 24.3 kg/m2, and at RML Hospital, where his weight was found to be 70 kg with a BMI of 23.7 kg/m2, both within the prescribed limits for the selection..

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by denying the fifteen-day period to the petitioner to make an appeal to the RMB, the respondents denied an opportunity to the petitioner to bring his weight within the prescribed permissible limit thereby acting arbitrarily. He further submits that the height of the petitioner was wrongly taken as 170 cm as against 172 cm and if the same had been correctly measured, the BMI of the petitioner would be 25.01 kg/m2, which is at the borderline of permissible BMI for selection (the standard being 25 kg/m2 ). He submits that therefore, the respondents should be directed to re-conduct the medical examination of the petitioner and if found eligible, appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. The purpose of RMB is to ensure that no mistake has occurred in the DME of the petitioner. The purpose is not to grant time to the candida