ASHWANI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had applied in response to an advertisement for filling up vacancies to the post of Head Constable (Combatised Ministerial) Group C in the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) in July, 2011. A written test was held in November, 2011; the petitioner was declared successful and short listed to appear in the typing and skill test. He was subsequently selected in February, 2012 and detailed for medical examination after he was successful in the skill test. His candidature was rejected on 2nd March, 2012 on medical grounds; the communication cited that X -ray showing, "consolidation in right mid zone". Aggrieved, the petitioner requested the IG, ITBP, on 20th March, 2012 for re -medical examination on the basis of X -ray and fitness certificate issued by the government doctor. The government doctor had certified that the petitioner is fit and was not suffering from any ailment which impaired his efficiency. Consequently, the petitioner was given another opportunity through a letter dated 8th May, 2012 for re -medical examination, which was to be conducted on 23rd May, 2012. The ITBP, this time again, rejected the petitioner's candidature on 24th July, 2012 stating that there was "consolidation in the right mid zone shown in the X -ray". It was argued by the petitioner that he sought for a copy of the X -ray under the Right to Information Act; this request was turned down. Consequently, he has approached the court for appropriate directions that the rejection of his candidature is arbitrary.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Fitness Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Naraina Dispensary, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which states that the rejection on the ground of his suffering from the condition of, "consolidation of right mid zone", was an error of judgment. Petitioner has also relied upon the treatment / medical papers issued by Viswanathan Chest Hospital, Delhi, which contained the history sheet in respect of his medical condition. It is submitted that having regard to these, the petitioner cannot be characterized as medically unfit, and that his condition is merely, "Asymptomatic", and does not require any treatment.