Disposed

Hitesh v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Oct 2024W.P.(C)/12302/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Medical Board's declaration as unfit for a CRPF post due to poor vision. The court noted significant delay and that recruitment was complete, but directed that future medical results for this post shall not bar the petitioner from undergoing fresh examination.

What did the court decide?

Directed that future medical examination results shall not bar petitioner's selection; petitioner must undergo fresh medical examination in accordance with law.

Hitesh Vs Union of India & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12302/2024 & CM APPL. 51161/2024 HITESH .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 01.10.2024

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection notice/memorandum dated 13.12.2023 issued by the respondent no.2, whereby the Medical Board declared the petitioner unfit for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the CRPF on the ground that his distant vision of the right eye was 6/12 and of the left eye was 6/9. The petitioner had requested a review of the said findings given by the Medical Board, however, the petitioner was again declared unfit by the Review Medical Board vide report dated 22.12.2023, this time finding his right eye vision to be 6/9 and left eye vision to be 6/4.

¶12

Unsatisfied by the findings given by the Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board, the petitioner got himself examined at a Civil Hospital in Bhiwani, Haryana, which reported his vision of the left eye as 6/6 and of the right eye as 6/6, finding his vision to be

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2024 at 10:53:06

¶15

perfect and not suffering from any defect. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the result of the medical examinations conducted by the Medical Boards constituted by the respondents, and seeking for further directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial).

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is fit in every aspect, as is evident from the Medical Report of the Civil Hospital at Bhiwani, Haryana. He contends that it is clear that there has been an error of judgment on the part of the Medical Boards conducted by the respondents and, thus, prays that the impugned Order dated 13.12.2023 is liable to be quashed and that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for recruitment to the abovementioned post.

¶17

The present petition was filed by the petitioner only on 02.09.2024. When the petition was listed before this Court for the first time on 04.09.2024, this Court found that there had been an inordinate delay in the filing of the present petition, and had granted time to the respondents to obtain instructions regarding the current status of the selection process. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the selection process for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) was completed on 12.01.2024 and the result was declared on 03.02.2024. He further submits that at present, there are no vacancies in the reserved category for Scheduled Caste, for which the petitioner had applied.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2024 at 10:53:06

¶19

Keeping in view of the above submissions, we find that the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage, when the recruitment process has already been completed and the results have also been declared and posts filled. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it is directed that in the event the petitioner applies for the said post or any other post in any of the Central Armed Police Force in the future, the result of the Medical Examination dated 13.12.2023 and of the Review Medical Examination dated 22.12.2023 shall not come in the way of the petitioner in the selection process, and the petitioner shall be subjected to a fresh medical examination in accordance with law.

¶20

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶22

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶23

OCTOBER 1, 2024 /ss/b/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2024 at 10:53:06

Hitesh v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Subedar Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Nupur Agarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S. Jindal Trading Co. through Its Proprietor Sh. Suresh Jindal Vs Commissioner, Delhi GST and Anr.

Geeta Kumari Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sumer Singh Dhayal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Navin Chandra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ritik Drall Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ritesh Mishra Vs Union of India and Anr.

Subedar Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ram Niwas Jat Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex Ct./Dcpo Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India & Others

Mr Bishnu Pratap Vs UOI through Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Insp/Gd Mangal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.