IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Bhagwat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) 8689 of 2023 & CM. APPLs. 32891-92 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Medical Examination - Overweight - The court set aside the medical examination result declaring the petitioner as unfit due to being overweight, as the Guidelines permitted a relaxation of +/- 5 kgs in borderline cases, and the petitioner fell within the permissible limit of weight as required by the Guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the detailed medical examination result and the review medical examination result, where he was declared medically unfit due to being overweight. The petitioner had applied for a recruitment examination and was found to be overweight during the medical examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's weight fell within the permissible limit as required by the Guidelines, which permitted a relaxation of +/- 5 kgs in borderline cases. The court set aside the medical examination result and declared the petitioner to be within the permissible weight limit.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner's weight fell within the permissible limit as required by the Guidelines, and if the medical examination result declaring the petitioner as unfit due to being overweight could be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Guidelines, which permitted a relaxation of +/- 5 kgs in borderline cases, and found that the petitioner's weight fell within the permissible limit as required by the Guidelines. The court set aside the medical examination result declaring the petitioner as unfit.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the medical examination result declaring the petitioner as unfit due to being overweight was set aside. The petitioner was declared to be within the permissible weight limit as required by the Guidelines, with a clarification that the petitioner would have to satisfy other requirements for appointment.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks quashing of the detailed medical examination result dated 01.06.2023 and the review medical examination result dated 02.06.2023, whereby the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit on the ground of being overweight.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents have erred in not taking into account the guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles (hereinafter referred to as the `Guidelines') as revised in May, 2015, which permit a relaxation of +/- 5 Kgs.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondents.
4. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today itself.
5. Respondent No.2 had issued a notification for recruitment of Assistant Commandants through Limited Departmental Competition Examination (LDCE) for the years 2018 to 2022 in a single examination. Petitioner, who was already working as a Sub-Inspector in the Border Security Force (BSF), opted to participate in the LDCE, which was held on 28.08.2022. Petitioner qualified the written examination as also the interview and personality test.
6. Petitioner was thereafter called for medical examination on 01.06.2023. The result of medical examination was declared and petitioner was found to be unfit.
7. The Medical Board proceedings of 01.06.2023 records the reason for declaring the petitioner unfit as under:
"Overweight by 1.5 kg, Age 35 yr, Height 174 cms, Required Wt.=61-74.5 + 5 kg.
BMI=26.8, still overwt by 1.5 kg after 05 kg relaxation"
8. The Guidelines in General Instructions for Recruitment Board i.e., instruction 2 (d), inter-alia, stipulates that "in borderline cases of overweight, BMI should also be considered to arrive at conclusion and variation of 5 Kg +/- from the minimum/maximum limit may be accepted..........." Petitioner therefore requested for a review Medical Board, which was conducted on 22.06.2023 in which the weight of the petitioner was recorded as under:
"WEIGHT-79 KGS. Ht. 174 Cm, (wt range 61 to 74.5 kg)
BMI 26 Kg/m2"
9. The Guidelines permit a relaxation of +/- 5 kg in borderline cases. Clearly, the case of the petitioner falls in the borderline category. Further, we may note that the review Medical Board records the weight of the petitioner as 79 kg and the weight required as 61 to 74.5 kg. In Annexure-1 to the Guidelines, the male average weights in kilograms for different age groups and heights in respect of the height of 174 cms. and age 33-37, the male average body weight is specified as 61-74.5 kgs, which is what is recorded in the review medical examination report. The review Medical Board also records that the petitioner is overweight by 4.5 kgs.
10. The result of the review Medical Board when examined in the light of the Guidelines, particularly, Guideline 2 (b) extracted hereinabove, shows that an error has been committed by the review Medical Board in declaring the petitioner as unfit for the reason that the Guidelines prescribe that in borderline cases, a variation of +/- 5 kg. from minimum/maximum limit may be accepted. In the case of the petitioner, relaxation of 5 kg would mean that the weight of 79.5 kg was permissible for being considered.
11. In the case of the petitioner, petitioner is recorded as having a weight of 79 kg on the date of the Review Medical Board. This is further fortified from the result of the first medical examination wherein 5 kg relaxation was granted to the petitioner.
12. The Guidelines clearly prescribe a variation of +/- 5 kgs of weight and the weight of the petitioner as recorded in the review Medical Board held on 02.06.2023 shows that the petitioner was within the limit of +/- 5 kg from the required average body weight of 74.5 kg. Clearly, the review Medical Board result on 02.06.2023, declaring the petitioner as unfit cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Petitioner is declared to be within the per
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Guidelines permitted a relaxation of +/- 5 kgs in borderline cases, and the petitioner's weight fell within the permissible limit as requi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the medical examination results must be in accordance with the guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination, which permit a relaxation of we....
The court held that there is no procedure for granting an opportunity to individuals to rectify the ailment/deficiency found by the medical board for declaring them unfit.
Weight variance of up to 5 kg is permissible in recruitment medical examinations, and declarations of unfitness must align with established guidelines on BMI and standards.
The guideline permitting a 5 kg variation in weight classification mandates that the Body Mass Index must be considered for borderline cases, leading to the erroneous declaration of unfitness being o....
Guidelines allow a 5 kg variation in weight assessments; the petitioner's BMI was within permissible limits, leading to the conclusion that he was incorrectly deemed unfit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's medical fitness should be determined in accordance with the Revised Uniform Guidelines, and any doubts regarding the medical ....
Strict physical and medical standards for recruitment to the CAPFs must be adhered to, and the court cannot prescribe relaxation in the selection criteria.
The court affirmed the right to a fair assessment in recruitment processes, directing a further medical examination due to inconsistencies in initial evaluations.
Medical fitness evaluations must adhere to standardized guidelines to ensure fair assessments of candidates regarding weight and vision qualifications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.