Full Text
Translation output
i $-57 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)6414/2017 '
COMMISSIONER OFPOLICE& ORS Potitioners
Through: Mr.AnujAggarwal,ASC with Ms.Deboshree Mukherjee,Adv.
W.P.(C)6414/2017 '
COMMISSIONER OFPOLICE& ORS Potitioners
Through: Mr.AnujAggarwal,ASC with Ms.Deboshree Mukherjee,Adv.
VERSUS
INDRA SINGHJAKHAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ajesh Luthra,Adv.
Through: Mr.Ajesh Luthra,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
28.07.2017 Caveat No.683/2017 Since counsel for the caveator/respondent appears, the caveat stands discharged.
CM No.26574/2017 Exemption allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
28.07.2017 Caveat No.683/2017 Since counsel for the caveator/respondent appears, the caveat stands discharged.
CM No.26574/2017 Exemption allowed subjectto alljustexceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C)6414/2017& CM No.26573/2017
The Commissioner ofPolice has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 24.01.2017,which is a common order passed in the several original applications including that ofthe respondent.
By the impugned order,the Tribunal has directed the same appellate
2017:DHC:8248-DB Medical-ExaminationBoard atAmnaAsafAli,GovernmentHospital, Delhi to make a fresh assessment of the medical condition of the respondent keeping in view the functional requirement ofthe postin question.
The case ofthe respondent Shri Indra Singh Jakhar who has preferred OA No.1813/2015isthatheappliedtothepostofConstable
(Driver) male in Delhi Police and participated in 2012 recruitment
^ ^xainination. He could not make it solely for the reason thathe was declared medically unfitnotonly inthe initial medical examination at
Guru Gobind Singh Hospital but also in the appellate medical examination at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi. The
Respondentwasissued ashow-cause notice asto why his candidature be not cancelled while indicating that he was found medically unfit.
Thereafter, the order dated 29.02.2015 was passed wherein it was mentioned that he was suffering from B/L Genu Varum. This condition Genu Varum relates to both legs. The respondent was not satisfied and accordingly approached the tribunal. The Tribunal took
Jr notice ofthe appendix to Rule 24 ofthe Delhi Police(Appointment and Recruitment)Rules 1980 which interalia readsasfollows:-
"The medical officer will reject a recruit for any disease or defect which is likely to render him unfit for the duties ofthe particular branch ofthe service in which he is desirous ofbeing enrolled.
Note:- The following points should not be overlooked:-
(v) Loss or deformity offingers,flat fleet,banner toes
U" > with painful corns or bursae on the dersum of toes.
Halux valgus, halux rigidus, knock-knee, deformity of chestandjoints,abnormal curvature ofthe spine.
Slight curvature of leg, is however, to be treated as normal and should notlead to unnecessary rejection."
The Tribunal has observed that though the respondent may be found to be suffering from a medical problem,the issue whether the medical condition of the respondent would render him unfit for the duties of the particular branch of service for which he is being considered should also be examined in accordance with the Appendix to the aforesaid Rules. It is in this light that the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid direction.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order particularly on account of the fact that the medical condition suffered by the respondent appears to have been specifically taken note in Paragraph K of the aforesaid which inter alia provides that "slight curvature of leg, is however,to be treated as normal and should not lead to urmecessary rejection". Then, it is contrasted with other deformity/medical condition which "should not be overlooked". It becomes clear that the medical condition from which the respondent suffers has been singled out as one which need not clearly lead to unnecessary rejection. This being the position, we are of the view that the direction issued by the Tribunal qua examination of the respondent given by the Appellate Medical Examination Board at Aruna AsafAli
Government Hospital is fair andjust.
Or.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
The pending application is also dismissed as infructuous.
JULY 28,2017 gm VIPIN SANGHI,J REKHA PAj^I,J
The Commissioner ofPolice has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 24.01.2017,which is a common order passed in the several original applications including that ofthe respondent.
By the impugned order,the Tribunal has directed the same appellate
2017:DHC:8248-DB Medical-ExaminationBoard atAmnaAsafAli,GovernmentHospital, Delhi to make a fresh assessment of the medical condition of the respondent keeping in view the functional requirement ofthe postin question.
The case ofthe respondent Shri Indra Singh Jakhar who has preferred OA No.1813/2015isthatheappliedtothepostofConstable
(Driver) male in Delhi Police and participated in 2012 recruitment
^ ^xainination. He could not make it solely for the reason thathe was declared medically unfitnotonly inthe initial medical examination at
Guru Gobind Singh Hospital but also in the appellate medical examination at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi. The
Respondentwasissued ashow-cause notice asto why his candidature be not cancelled while indicating that he was found medically unfit.
Thereafter, the order dated 29.02.2015 was passed wherein it was mentioned that he was suffering from B/L Genu Varum. This condition Genu Varum relates to both legs. The respondent was not satisfied and accordingly approached the tribunal. The Tribunal took
Jr notice ofthe appendix to Rule 24 ofthe Delhi Police(Appointment and Recruitment)Rules 1980 which interalia readsasfollows:-
"The medical officer will reject a recruit for any disease or defect which is likely to render him unfit for the duties ofthe particular branch ofthe service in which he is desirous ofbeing enrolled.
Note:- The following points should not be overlooked:-
(v) Loss or deformity offingers,flat fleet,banner toes
U" > with painful corns or bursae on the dersum of toes.
Halux valgus, halux rigidus, knock-knee, deformity of chestandjoints,abnormal curvature ofthe spine.
Slight curvature of leg, is however, to be treated as normal and should notlead to unnecessary rejection."
The Tribunal has observed that though the respondent may be found to be suffering from a medical problem,the issue whether the medical condition of the respondent would render him unfit for the duties of the particular branch of service for which he is being considered should also be examined in accordance with the Appendix to the aforesaid Rules. It is in this light that the Tribunal has passed the aforesaid direction.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order particularly on account of the fact that the medical condition suffered by the respondent appears to have been specifically taken note in Paragraph K of the aforesaid which inter alia provides that "slight curvature of leg, is however,to be treated as normal and should not lead to urmecessary rejection". Then, it is contrasted with other deformity/medical condition which "should not be overlooked". It becomes clear that the medical condition from which the respondent suffers has been singled out as one which need not clearly lead to unnecessary rejection. This being the position, we are of the view that the direction issued by the Tribunal qua examination of the respondent given by the Appellate Medical Examination Board at Aruna AsafAli
Government Hospital is fair andjust.
Or.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
The pending application is also dismissed as infructuous.
JULY 28,2017 gm VIPIN SANGHI,J REKHA PAj^I,J
JUDGMENT