Allowed

The Union of India and 6 Ors. v. Mangalu Nath

Gauhati HC6 Apr 2022WA/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals of the Union of India. Holding that new medical guidelines cannot be applied retroactively after recruitment has commenced, the Court set aside the cancellation of the respondent's candidature as medically unfit and directed the CRPF to accept his joining, leaving surgery optional for future consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 26.08.2017 cancelling candidature is set aside. Respondent directed to report forthwith for joining.

The Union of India and 6 Ors. Vs Mangalu Nath — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010018442022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WA/56/2022

¶5

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001

¶6

2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI- 110003

¶7

3: THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL NORTH EAST ZONE CRPF AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶8

4: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF NORTH EAST SECTOR SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN- 793004

¶9

5: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE CRPF DAYAPUR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030

¶10

6: THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER COMPOSITE HOSPITAL CRPF

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788030

¶13

7: THE COMMANDANT GROUP CENTRE CRPF SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 78803

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

MANGALU NATH

¶16

S/O AJIT NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUTHIMARI, PO AND PS SARBHOG, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM, 781317

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶20

Order

¶21

06.04.2022

¶22

Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ

¶23

Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶24

The Union of India is before this Court as the writ appellant challenging the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5813/2017. By the impugned order dated 08.11.2021, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent by setting aside the order

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Dayapur, Silchar, whereby the candidature of the private respondent, who was selected and was offered appointment as Constable (GD) in CRPF after going through due selection process including a medical test, was cancelled.

¶27

The facts which are material for our consideration are as under:

¶28

An advertisement was issued by the Staff Selection Commission on 24.01.2015 to fill posts of Constable in various Central Armed Police Forces including CRPF. The respondent/writ petitioner successfully cleared all stages of recruitment and was finally issued an admit card for appearing in the medical examination which was held on 27.05.2016 in which the respondent/writ petitioner was found to be medically fit. Consequently, the name of the respondent/writ petitioner appeared in the select list which was published on 02.02.2017 where he was allotted the post of Constable in CRPF. Thereafter, the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF issued the Office Order dated 17.05.2017 for appointment of the respondent/ writ petitioner directing the respondent/writ petitioner to join his duties on or before 05.06.2017. In pursuance of the said order dated 17.05.2017, the respondent/writ petitioner reported for joining at the designated place along with the entire documents as he was required to furnish. It was at this stage that the respondent/writ petitioner was asked to appear in another medical examination before a Medical Board at Composite Hospital, CRPF, Silchar. It was in this medical examination that the respondent/writ petitioner was declared medically unfit on 19.06.2017 and the reason assigned for declaring him as medically unfit was that he was having six fingers in his right hand, which is described as “Polydactyl Right Hand”. Thereafter, the respondent/writ petitioner was asked to appear before the Review Medical Board, where again he was examined on 16.08.2017 and the Review Medical Board declared the respondent/writ petitioner to be unfit due to “Polydactyl Right Hand with fixed

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

flexion deformity of accessory digit.” Thereafter, the impugned order dated 26.08.2017 was issued cancelling the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

In the counter affidavit filed by the CRPF, it was stated that the reason assigned for cancelling the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner was ‘Polydactyl of hands’, which was one of the grounds for rejection as per the new guidelines dated 20.05.2015. The undisputed fact, however, is that when the advertisement for the recruitment process was issued on 24.01.2015, the said guidelines (as per which the respondent/writ petitioner has been declared medically unfit) were not in existence and the medical examination of a candidate was to be done as per the guidelines dated 13.07.2011, where admittedly “Polydactyl of hand” was not a medical condition which would have entailed rejection of a candidate. It is on this ground that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition holding that the concerned authority (CRPF) has cancelled the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner on the basis of the guidelines which were not in existence when the advertisement was issued and, therefore, those guidelines were not applicable to the present case. In doing so, the learned Single Judge has also relied upon a decision of the High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 16120 of 2016 (AFR Suchitra Sethi –vs- Union of India & Ors.), where in connection with the same recruitment process the candidature of a candidate was rejected on medical grounds which was a deformity as per the 2015 Guidelines but was not one of the grounds of rejection as per the 2011 Guidelines which were applicable. This Court therefore is in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge as the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started, which is precisely what has been done in the present case.

¶32

There is yet another aspect which is to be considered by this Court. It is on

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

record that when the respondent/writ petitioner was being medically examined for the second time, he was asked to obtain a medical opinion from Silchar Medical College & Hospital. The medical opinion which was given by the Department of Orthopaedics, Silchar Medical College & Hospital and was made a part of the record, shows that “Accessory Digit can be removed and corrected by surgery if required”.

¶35

Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner has been wrongly cancelled by the CRPF authorities. Accordingly, the order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Dayapur, Silchar cancelling the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner and all other consequential orders are hereby set aside. The respondent/writ petitioner is directed to report forthwith to the Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Dayapur, Silchar, who shall accept the joining of the respondent/writ petitioner. It is left open to the CRPF authorities, after having medical opinion in the matter, to get the accessory digit removed by surgery, as opined by the Department of Orthopaedics, Silchar Medical College & Hospital.

¶36

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 6 Ors. v. Mangalu Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and 6 Ors. v. Mangalu Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Prasad Vs the Canara Bank and Anr.

Damayanti Boro and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Damayanti Boro and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Union of India and 6 Ors. Vs Mangalu Nath

Bank of India Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and 3 Ors.

All Assam Nurses Association and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.