IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 04.02.2025 Yogesh ……Petitioner (s)

Versus Union of India & others ..…Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD S.BHARDWAJ Present:- Mr.Sunil Kumar Nehra, Mr.Pankaj Mittal, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr.Sudhir Nar, Sr.Panel Counsel, for respondents-UOI.

****

VINOD S.BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) :

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the rejection slip dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure P-3) whereby petitioner has been rejected in the medical examination and to the order dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) vide which the appeal of the petitioner for re-medical examination has been rejected.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that father of the petitioner who was serving in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITBP’) had expired while on duty. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for being given compassionate appointment on the basis of his qualification. He received a call letter dated 10.11.2017 from the respondents wherein it was mentioned that for appointment on compassionate basis, examination for the post of Head Constable (CM) would be held on 11.12.2017. The petitioner appeared in the said recruitment process and was declared successful. His medical examination was conducted and he was declared unfit in the said medical examination by recording the following reason for his rejection:

“Distance (Rt. Eye 6/9, Lt. Eye 6/12) : wax both ear and Phinosis”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection slip and the reasons given thereunder, petitioner filed an appeal for medical re-examination which was again declined by the Commandant (Recruitment) on

09.05.2018 by recording as under:

“Post lasik eye (both)”

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was declared unfit during the medical examination on the ground of ‘distant vision, wax in both ears and phinosis’ whereas while dismissing the appeal, it was noticed that the petitioner suffered from ‘Post lasik eye (both)’ and was declared unfit. Hence, the reasons given for rejection of the petitioner are at variance and that on account of getting the eye operation done through laser cannot be an infirmity and it only rectified the infirmity and the same would, in no manner, hamper his functions as a Head Constable. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in M.E.Mohamed Musaf Raseen Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & others, 2019 (4) SLR 468, judgments of Delhi High Court in Ms.Sreeja K. Vs. Union of India & another, WP(C) 3196/2012 decided on 29.05.2012 and in Union of India & another Vs. Saikat Roy, W.P.(C)No.508 of 2014, decided on 24.01.2024 as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-10395-2024 titled Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh & others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & another, decided on

23.05.2024.

5. From the reading of all the above-said judgments, it can be deciphered that the authorities had taken a decision declining appointment to the candidature of the persons who had undergone lasik surgery and the said medical impairment had been declared insufficient to hold a person ineligible for appointment.

6. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of the petitioner having been declared disqualified in the medical examination on account of distant vision and other deficiencies. Petitioner preferred an appeal and even there, he was not found medically fit to discharge his functions/duties as a part of disciplined force. He contends that petitioner had originally preferred for the post of Constable on compassionate basis but later, he submitted his option for absorption to the post of Head Constable (Telecommunication) in place of Constable (General Duty) which was approved by the competent authority and he was allowed to appear in PST/PET, a written examination for the post of Head Constable (Teleco