Dismissed

Suraksha v. Central Reserve Police Force and Ors.

Delhi HC22 Nov 2021W.P.(C)/13081/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition challenging the medical unfitness order declaring the petitioner overweight despite a normal BMI. The Court held that BMI is applicable only in doubtful cases (overweight by less than 5kgs) and allowed the medical unfit order since the petitioner was overweight by more than 5kgs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and pending applications were dismissed asking for directions to reconsider the petitioner as medically fit.

Suraksha Vs Central Reserve Police Force and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2021)

¶1

$~45

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 13081/2021 & C.M.NOS.41261-41262/2021 SURAKSHA ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through Mr.Amit Kaushik, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND ORS. .... Respondents Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Advocate for UOI.

¶7

% Date of Decision: 22^nd November, 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA J U D G M E N T

¶8

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶9

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the memorandum dated 30^th October, 2021 issued by Respondent No.1, whereby the Petitioner was declared medically unfit on account of being overweight. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to medically re-examine the petitioner in a time bound manner and allow the petitioner to participate in the documents verification process to be conducted in December, 2021.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner qualified Paper-1 and Paper-2 in the SI-CPO Examination Notice, 2019 and was shortlisted by Respondent No.3 for a detailed medical examination to be conducted by Respondent No. 1. He further states that the Petitioner was initially declared unfit on 27^th October 2021 by Respondent No.1 on various grounds such as overweight, Tremors and Anaemia, in furtherance of which

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Digitally Signed By:JASWANTSINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) No.13081/2021 Signing Date:23.11.2021 19:09:07

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

the Petitioner opted for a review medical examination before the Review Medical Board.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was declared unfit by Respondent No.1 on the ground of being overweight. He admits that the Review Medical Board through respondent no.1 declared the petitioner, being 61.2 kg, unfit as she was overweight by 7.3 kg.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that para 11.6.2 of SI-CPO Examination Notice, 2019 provides for the weight of the candidate to correspond to the height and therefore applying the formula of Body Mass Index (BMI), the BMI of the Petitioner comes to 22.5 kg/m² , which is within the healthy range of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m² .

¶17

He emphasises that the Medical Examination Guidelines provide for the assessment to be made on the basis of BMI in doubtful cases of overweight.

¶18

It is settled law that this Court in writ jurisdiction only examines the decision making process so as to ensure that the Petitioner is treated fairly and reasonably by the Respondents. Admittedly, the Petitioner was overweight by more than five kgs. on both the occasions i.e. the date when the initial Medical Board was held as well as on the date when the Review Medical Board was held. Consequently, the present matter is not a doubtful case of overweight as the Petitioner does not fall within the + 5 kg category. 7. This Court is of the view that the criterion of BMI is to be applied only in doubtful cases of overweight. As the Petitioner was found overweight by both the Initial Medical Board as well as Review Medical Board and, that too, by more than five kgs., the Petitioner is not a doubtful case of overweight and consequently, the criteria of BMI is not applicable.

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:JASWANTSINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) No.13081/2021 Signing Date:23.11.2021 19:09:07

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Accordingly, the present writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed along with pending applications.

¶23

MANMOHAN, J

¶24

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶25

NOVEMBER 22, 2021 KA

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:JASWANTSINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) No.13081/2021 Signing Date:23.11.2021 19:09:07

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Suraksha v. Central Reserve Police Force and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraksha v. Central Reserve Police Force and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Jain & Anr. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporatio & Ors.

Mr.Navin Duggal Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Jasbir Singh & Ors. Vs Delhi Jal Board

Manoj Kumar Gope & Ors. Vs Intelligence Bureau

Air Cmde Navish Bahri(Retd) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Virendra Prakash Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Las Ground Force Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Airports Authority of India & Ors.

Smt.Shalini Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, & Anr.

Valdas Medhavi(Ex CPL734548 Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex Corporal Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Vijay Steelcon Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax (Gst) Delhi East & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Shri Dhan Laxmi Trade House Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Smt.Shalini Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, & Anr.