Ram Nath Jha v. DGP C.I.S.F. & Ors.

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The instant case raises a challenge to the denial of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector/work (Ex-servicemen) on the ground that he does not have teeth.

2. It is the petitioner‟s contention that he lost his teeth while he was working with the Army, and since 2002 has been using the complete denture which had been fitted in the Military Dental Hospital and has been categorized as SHAPE-I throughout. The petitioner has submitted that he had retired from the Indian Army in 2008 and had been placed in category 2010:DHC:5720-DB employment with the respondents – Central Industrial Security Force Court („CISF‟ hereafter) as an ex-serviceman which has been denied. It is contended that the petitioner is medically fit for re-employment.

3. The petitioner assails the rejection of the petitioner‟s candidature for re-employment as an ex-serviceman by the CISF on the ground that he has been certified as being medically unfit for the reason that he does not possess teeth.

4. It has been pointed out that even the Indian Army maintains separate standard of medical fitness so far as exservicemen who are seeking re-employment are concerned. The petitioner has urged that the CISF has no rules for recruitment of ex-servicemen. This position is not disputed.

5. Our attention is drawn to para-43 of the rules for DSC and APS personnel/Dockyard Apprentice (Navy) so far as dental standards are concerned. Para-43(c) provides that artificial dentures for ex-servicemen volunteering between the age of 30-45 years is permissible for re-employment. So far as the dental standards and examination of teeth which are prescribed in the said Manual for Recruiting Medical Officers inter alia prescribes that “Ex-servicemen with well fitted dentures may be accepted for re-enrolment”.

6. Our attention is also drawn to the standards of physical fitness test which have been prescribed by the army authorities. We find that the minimum standards prescribed for persons vary as per the age group of the concerned personnel. A careful prescription of age wise graded criterion has been made.

7. The respondents have placed reliance on the fitness standards laid down by the CISF for initial recruitment. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the fitness level of an eighteen year old seeking initial recruitment cannot be the same as that of an ex-servicemen who is seeking reemployment after retiring beyond the age of 45 years.

8. The army authorities have applied their mind and prescribed standards whereas no such effort has been made by the CISF. In view of the above, the certification of the petitioner‟s medical unfitness by the Chief Medical Office (SG), CISF RTC on 6th September, 2009 on the ground of absence of teeth and by the Review Medical Examination on the 7th April, 2010 for the same reason, is certainly arbitrary and without any basis. Admittedly, no rules for such evaluation are in existence. This certification by the respondents on the sole ground of medical unfitness is also not based on any relevant material or criteria.

9. We find that the Military Dental Centre, Delhi Cantt. on the 12th of September, 2009 has examined the petitioner and has observed that the petitioner possesses denture and has certified that the petitioner is dentally fit for CISF.

10. The rejection of the petitioner‟s candidature on the sole ground of such finding of medical unfitness is, therefore, not legally sustainable. In view of the above, we make the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Commandant,

Army Hospital (Research and Referral), Delhi Cantt. with all records of his medical examination and treatment, if any, which may be in his power and possession, at