INDERJEET Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent's Sashastra Seema Bal ("SSB")'s cancellation/withdrawal of his appointment, by issuing orders dated 08.11.2014 and 13.11.2014, which in effect resulted in his discharge from the post of Constable (Driver). The petitioner had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver) in August, 2013. He participated in the recruitment process and was called for medical examination on 24.01.2014. He was declared medially unfit at that stage. He appealed to the authorities to grant the benefit of review medical board. The review carried out led to a report which declared him fit. Consequently, the SSB issued an offer of appointment on 30.05.2014. Further to this, the petitioner reported for duties on 26.06.2014. It is alleged that on the basis of a clandestine information/complaint, allegedly made by the co-trainee, the petitioner was directed to be medically examined again. Apparently, this led to the petitioner's examination at the behest of the Commandant when it was discerned that he was suffering from knock knee. Consequently, he was referred to the Medical Board. The Board which carried out his physical examination comprised of three Doctors including the Orthopaedic Surgeon. The findings of the Board inter alia are as follows:-

(2.) Based upon the evaluation, the respondents issued the impugned orders dated 08.11.2014 and 13.11.2014. The subsequent order of 13.11.2014 cancelled the petitioner's offer and consequently the appointment to the post of Constable (Driver). It is contended on the petitioner's behalf that the respondents could not have acted whilst invoking the powers to terminate his services without holding an enquiry, given that the motivation for reopening the issue was an allegation, the particulars of which were never shown to him. Emphasizing that the petitioner has become a victim of unilateral action, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fairness demanded that the SSB should have conducted a detailed enquiry and in the circumstances obtained independent opinion and found out whether in fact he really suffered from the condition alleged, i.e., knock knees.

(3.) The respondents in their counter affidavit highlight that no action which resulted in a stigmatic order was taken against the petitioner. It is submitted that the information received only led to an ascertainment as to whether there was any truth in the allegation and whether any candidate was in fact suffering from a medical condition which rendered him ineligible for appointment. In the process of this enquiry it was discerned by the petitioner's Commandant that the petitioner did in fact have a knock knee condition, which was a disqualification. The findings of the medical board of September, 2014 were relied upon in these circumstances to say that the action in this case cannot be termed as stigmatic. The respondents have also relied upon the paragraph 19 of the relevant extracts of the Medical Manual which sets out the medical standards for candidates/recruits to the SSB. The relevant portion of the said manual reads as follows: -