Munna Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 05 Dec 2024 · 2025:DHC:3274-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul
W.P.(C) 2995/2025
2025:DHC:3274-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the petitioner fit for appointment as ASI in CISF after subsequent medical evidence disproved the initial ground of disqualification.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 2995/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2995/2025
MUNNA KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee
WITH
Mr. Shantanu Bhowmick, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, SPC
WITH
Mr. Rishav Dubey, GP, Mr. Sheeshpal Singh Negi, AC/CISF, Mr. Devenda, SI/CISF, Mr. Amit Kumar, SI/CISF and Mr. Rahul Sinha, SI/CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
01.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. Mr. Mukerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the disability, on the basis of which the petitioner had been declared unfit by the Review Medical Board for appointment as Assistant Sub- Inspector[1] in the Central Industrial Security Force[2] was his inability to flex his left index finger.

2. He has drawn our attention to the documents now placed on record by the respondents under cover of an affidavit dated 1 April “ASI” hereinafter “CISF”, hereinafter 2025, filed by one Mr. Dilip Kumar, Senior Commandant/ADM, CISF.

3. The medical documents relating to the petitioner have been placed on record under the said affidavit.

4. Page 5 of the affidavit is an OPD prescription by the Unit Dispensary, SSG Greater Noida, CISF, which notes a tentative opinion that the petitioner was unable to flex his left index finger and referred the matter to the OPD of the Orthopaedics Department.

5. That department has, however, on the very next day i.e. 7 December 2024, certified that the petitioner is able to flex his left index finger.

6. The sole ground on which the petitioner was treated as ‘unfit’ for appointment as ASI in the CISF was that he was unable to flex his left index finger. After the report dated 7 December 2024 of the CAPFS, Referral Hospital, Greater Noida, to the effect that the petitioner is able to flex his left index finger, this ground does not survive.

7. The memorandum dated 5 December 2024 by which the petitioner was declared unfit for appointment as ASI on the ground that he could not flex his left index finger is therefore quashed and set aside. The petitioner is declared as ‘fit’ for appointment to the post of ASI in the CISF.

8. The respondents are directed to take consequential action in accordance with law.

9. The petitioner would be entitled to appointment along with the batch with which he had been selected and considered, and to join the training with the said batch, which is said to be ongoing.

10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.