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.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

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') dated 25.10.2021. The petitioner further prays for direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh DME for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the notice inviting applications for the post of `Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination 2019'. The petitioner, upon clearing the Physical Endurance Test and Physical Standards Test (PET & PST), was invited for his DME at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, GC Campus Golf Course Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as `CH CRPF').

3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the DME conducted on 21.10.2021, he was found unfit on three grounds, which are as follows:

i) Overweight (7 kg);

ii) Squint

iii) DNS (Rt) Side i.e. Deviated Nasal Septum (Right Side).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DME result did not mention the recorded height and weight of the petitioner, and as to what height had been considered and what the actual weight of the petitioner was while declaring the petitioner to be overweight by 7 kg.

5. Aggrieved by the result of the DME, the petitioner applied for his RME, which was to be held on 22.10.2021 at CH CRPF. Vide the result of the RME, which was declared on 25.10.2021, the petitioner was found medically fit on two grounds, that is, squint and DNS but was still found medically unfit on the ground of being overweight.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the `Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPF and Assam Rifles' (hereinafter referred to as the `Guidelines') issued in the year 2015 to submit that a variation of 5 kgs was to be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the declaration of the petitioner as `Unfit' is therefore, incorrect and is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner having been found overweight, has been rightly declared `Unfit' for appointment.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. Clause 2(d) of the Guidelines as on May, 2015 inter-alia prescribe the following standards for weight:

"2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECRUITMENT BOARD.

xxx

(d) Measurement of physical standards viz. height, weight, and chest is the responsibility of the Physical Standard Test Board (PST Board) for all categories of candidates i.e GOs, SOs and Ors. Medical officers will not be part of PST board both for Male & Female candidates. Since presence of a female is required at the time of recording of physical standard (PST), a female non medical staff may be associated with PST board. Recruiting medical officer need not record to physical measurements. Recruiting medical officer will mention physical standard in the medical examination form as recorded by the PST board. In borderline cases of overweight, BMI should also be considered to arrive at conclusion and variation of 5Kg +/- from the minimum/maximum limit may be accepted. Similarly while measuring height fraction of cm less that 0.5 will be ignored and 0.5 cm & more will be rounded off to the next higher cm. Standard height weight chart is attached at ANNEXURE-I."

9. A reading of the above clause would show that in borderline cases, the Body Mass Index (in s