KULDEEP Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant case has undergone the selection process for appointment as Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force pursuant to an advertisement dated 11 April, 2011. The petitioner qualified the written examination as well as the physical efficiency test. However, he was declared medically unfit in his medical examination conducted on 26 July, 2011 on the ground of "hypertension, knock knees and overweight". A Review Medical Board of the petitioner was conducted on 24 November, 2011 which found that the petitioner was not having knock knees. The petitioner was also not overweight. However, he was found to be suffering from hypertension and consequently, the Review Medical Board opined the petitioner having been unfit for recruitment. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the finding of the medical unfitness on two grounds. The first is that the petitioner has got himself medically examined at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital on 29 July, 2011 and has been certified as medically fit. The hospital has noted the blood pressure of the petitioner as well. The petitioner has further submitted that the review medical examination was not conducted as per the prescribed medical guidelines. Mr. Rajinder Nischal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed before this court the "Uniform Guidelines Prescribed for Conduct of Medical Examination Test for Combined Recruitment of Constable/GD in CAPFs & ARs" for the year 2011 - 12. So far as the examination of blood pressure is concerned, the prescribed guideline is as follows: -

(2.) THE document of the Review Medical Board dated 24 November, 2011 shows that the respondents failed to record the other blood pressure readings on the same date. Instead it records that the blood pressure of the petitioner remained high on 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24 November, 2011. It was certainly not in terms of the guidelines.

(3.) BE that as it may, the Review Medical Board has not followed the binding guidelines on the subject. Given the doubt which is created by the certificate placed by the petitioner from the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital coupled with the above, it would appear to be essential that the petitioner is independently examined in terms of the aforenoticed guidelines. In case the petitioner was certified as fit, the cancellation of his selection was improper, he would require to be given the employment. In view of the above, it is directed as follows: