Remanded

Mandeep Chahar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1372/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a writ petition regarding the petitioner's rejection as a CISF Head Constable due to skin conditions. The Court held that specific recruitment guidelines did not apply as the petitioner's condition was not listed. It directed the respondent to convene a Review Medical Board including a Skin Specialist for a fresh examination. (60 words)

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to constitute a Review Medical Board including a Skin Specialist at Army Hospital, New Delhi, for a fresh medical examination of the petitioner within six weeks.

Mandeep Chahar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~19

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1372/2016 & C.Ms.5979-80/2016

¶4

MANDEEP CHAHAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal and Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC, with Mr. Rohan Gupta and Mr. Rahul Ray Malik, Advocates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 18.02.2016

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent-CISF to consider issuing an appointment letter to him for the post of a Head Constable (GD) in the sportsmen quota on the ground that he has cleared all the prescribed tests and his candidature could not have been turned down for medical reasons.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after clearing all the prescribed tests in the month of September, 2015, the

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

W.P.(C) 1372/2016

¶15

petitioner was required to undergo a medical examination from a Government Hospital. Accordingly, he had approached the Deputy CMO of a Government Hospital at Baghpat for his medical examination, who had prepared a report dated 16^th October, 2015, opining therein that the petitioner is fit for duties. Armed with the said report, the petitioner had approached the respondent-CISF for a medical examination to be conducted at the CISF Hospital. Vide letter dated 5^th December, 2015, CISF Hospital at Saket, New Delhi, opined that the petitioner is suffering from “Lencoderma on glans penis and multiple hyper pigmented patches all over the body” and referred him to the Skin Specialist for the further check up and opinion.

¶16

As a result, the petitioner approached Safdarjung Hospital at New Delhi for a check up and opinion, and the diagnosis given was that he was suffering from “Hyper Pigmented Over Glans Penis” . However, the report concluded by stating that the petitioner’s condition was not infectious. The petitioner again approached the CISF Hospital at Saket, New Delhi, with aforesaid report and in turn, was directed to approach Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (R.M.L) Hospital, New Delhi, for a medical examination by the skin specialist.

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

W.P.(C) 1372/2016

¶19

On being examined by the Skin Specialist, at R.M.L. Hospital, a medical certificate dated 18^th December, 2015 was issued stating inter alia that the petitioner’s skin condition is because of some drug allergy the nature of which remains unknown and the same is non-contagious and will not hamper him in job/routine life. Thus, he was declared fit for the job.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite two favourable reports from government hospitals, the Review Medical Board turned down his candidature on his review medical examination on the ground that as per the MHA Guidelines On Recruitment, Vitiligo and Congenital or Acquired Skin Anomalies, would be a cause for rejection.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receiving the aforesaid rejection order, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents on 5^th January, 2016, which remains unreplied.

¶22

Mr. Mahajan, counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that petitioner’s representation dated 5^th January, 2016, has been turned down by the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 12^th February, 2016, a copy whereof has been handed over to the other side and also to us. The said letter states

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

W.P.(C) 1372/2016

¶25

that there is no provision to consider cases where the candidates have been declared unfit in a Review Medical Board. Learned counsel also hands over the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles as issued on May, 2015, and particularly, draws attention of this Court to para No.8, which states as under: -

¶26

“ 8. Congenital or acquired anomalies of the skin

¶27

such as nevi or vascular tumors that interfere with function, or are exposed to constant irritation are disqualifying. History of Dysplastic Nevus Syndrome is disqualifying.”

¶28

It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has been disqualified on the ground that he falls under para 8 of the aforesaid Guidelines. However, on examining para 8 of the said Guidelines, it is apparent that it relates to certain specific anomalies of skin, such as nevi or vascular tumors, and unless the petitioner was found to be suffering from any of the specific anomalies of the skin mentioned therein, his candidature could not have been turned down by the respondents by applying the said Guidelines.

¶29

It has also been enquired from learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the Review Medical Board, which had

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

W.P.(C) 1372/2016

¶32

submitted its report dated 9^th December, 2015, included a Skin Specialist, to which the reply is in the negative.

¶33

In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to request the Army Hospital (R & R) at New Delhi to arrange for the petitioner to appear for his fresh medical examination before the Review Medical Board so that the report submitted can be considered in light of the captioned Guidelines. 11. The present petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions: -

¶34

(i). The respondents shall approach the Commandant of Army Hospital (R & R), New Delhi, with the request to constitute a Review Medical Board, which should include a Skin Specialist, for conducting the medical examination of the petitioner.

¶35

(ii). The petitioner shall be informed in writing of the date and time fixed for his medical examination at the Army Hospital (R & R), Delhi.

¶36

(iii). The petitioner’s earlier medical reports and other relevant records shall also be furnished to the Review Medical Board.

¶37

(iv). The petitioner shall be examined by the Board and a

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

W.P.(C) 1372/2016

¶40

report shall be prepared uninfluenced by the earlier reports and forwarded to the respondents.

¶41

(v). The respondents shall peruse the said report and reconsider the petitioner’s case as per the findings returned therein and in terms of the captioned Guidelines.

¶42

(vi). The aforesaid process shall be completed within a period of six weeks, under written intimation to the petitioner.

¶43

If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision, that may be taken by the respondents, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies in accordance with law.

¶44

The present petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

¶45

A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the respondents for compliance.

¶46

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶47

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶48

FEBRUARY 18, 2016 s

¶49

Page 6 of 6

¶50

W.P.(C) 1372/2016

Mandeep Chahar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Chahar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pan Parag India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)Delhi & Anr.

Kothari Product Ltd. & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs Export Inland Container Depot Tuglakabad New Delhi & Anr.

Npt Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Accountant Girish Bagdi Vs Prinicipal Commiissioner of Customs Icd (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi & Ors.

Mahipal Dabas & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jagdish Saini Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Brij Mohan Babbar Secretary Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Welfare Association Vs Union of India & Anr.

Surender Kumar Sharma Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited

Chander Bhan Singh Chauhan Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Pooja Kumar Vs Delhi High Court and Anr.

Ajeet Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Om Prakash Rawat Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kailash Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ram Veer Vs Union of India & Ors.