W.P.(C) 112/2022 Page 1 of 3

$~20

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 25^th April, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 112/2022

SANDEEP POSWAL

...... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. K.P. Jayanarayan & Mr. Pulkit

Aggarwal, Advocates

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Avnish Singh, Senior Central

Government Standing Counsel with

Head Constable.Surender Singh,

Government Pleader

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to set aside order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the respondent, vide

which his appeal to appear for medical test for appointment to the post of

Head Constable pursuant to Notification DAVP 19113/11/0004/1920, has

been rejected by the respondents. Further, a direction is sought to the

respondent to conduct re-medical examination of petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to aforesaid

notification, petitioner had applied for appointment of Head Constable in

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001502

W.P.(C) 112/2022 Page 2 of 3

CISF and pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 had issued a call letter calling

upon the petitioner to give weight/ height measurements on 18.02.2020.

Thereafter, petitioner was instructed to participate in the physical

examination on 19.02.2020. Upon being successful, petitioner was again

called upon to appear for medical test on 03.09.2021 and he appeared for the

same. However, on 04.09.2021, petitioner came to know that his candidature

for the post in question was rejected by the Medical Board due to reasons

stated as “Obesity”. Aggrieved against the aforesaid rejection, petitioner is

stated to preferred an appeal in the prescribed form before the competent

authority, which was rejected vide communication dated 04.10.2021.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the

appeal of the petitioner has been rejected because the „RME appeal was not

signed by him and the requisite demand draft was not attached‟, however,

the demand draft was attached to the appeal and even if there was

negligence on petitioner‟s part, he should have been given to him to sign the

same, which was declined despite several requests.

4.

To the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents

submits that signing of appeal by appellant and enclosing of requisite fee by

way of demand draft were mandatory requirements and, there is no fault in

the order passed by the respondent.

5.

The relevant Paras-3 and 5 of the impugned communication dated

04.10.2021 read as under:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001502

W.P.(C) 112/2022 Page 3 of 3

reasons mentioned in para No.03.”

6.

Pertinently, rejection of petitioner‟s candidature for the afore-

mentioned reasons is not disputed by learned counsel for respondents.

7.

Upon hearing and on perusal of Paras-3 and 5 of the impugned

communication dated 04.10.2021, we find that the appeal of petitioner has

not been decided on merits and has rather been dismissed for afore-noted

reasons. We hereby set aside the impugned communication dated

04.10.2021 and dispose of the present petition giving liberty to the petitioner

to prefer a fresh appeal before the competent authority within two weeks,

which shall be considered and decided by the respondents as per applicable

rules and regulations within the statutory period. The fate of the appeal be

communicated to the appellant within two weeks of decisions thereon.

Needless to say, if any grievance still persists, petitioner is at liberty to

challenge it b