SUCHITRA SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Staff Selection Commission, Government of India released a notification on 24.01.2015 to fill up 62390 GD Constable vacancies (both male and female) in different categories, i.e., SC, ST, OBC and Un-Reserved in Indian Armed Forces like BSF, CISF, CRPF/CAPF, SSB, ITBP, Assam Rifles, NIA, SSF. As per the notification, the intending candidates, having minimum qualification of 10th class or its equivalent from the recognized Board with age limit from 18 to 23 years, were to submit their applications through online from 24.01.2015 to 23.02.2015. The recruitment test was to be done by conducting written examination, medical test and interview. The selected candidates were to get salary of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner, being an SC category candidate with sub-caste "Dhoba", submitted her application through online. After entertaining her application, she was allotted Roll No.14604022686 with examination centre at ER-Bhubaneswar (4604) and State Code Odisha-26. As per schedule of recruitment test, the petitioner appeared at the written examination and was qualified. Thereafter, the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST) were held wherein she was qualified by securing marks more than the requirement. So far as chest test is concerned, there was no such requirement prescribed for female candidates as revealed from PET and PST test.

(2.) Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that the petitioner, having qualified in the scheme of examination as prescribed in the notice dated 24.01.2015, i.e., written test, PET and PST tests, should not have been declared unfit on a flimsy ground, which amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power by the authority concerned. As such, notice of recruitment clearly indicated that no chest measurement was necessary for the female candidates. It is further contended that the reason for rejection has not been indicated under Clause-6, i.e., General grounds for rejection, of Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for Recruitment in CAPFs, NSG & AR. Once this ground is set out in the general grounds for rejection, petitioner having not come under this guideline, nonconsideration of her candidature cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is also contended that, as the notice for recruitment was issued on 24.01.2015, the action so taken by issuing subsequent revised guideline dated 20.05.2015, cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, necessary appointment order should be issued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the medical report submitted by the Medical Board of the City Hospital, Cuttack. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and others, 2005 2 Supreme 615, Mrs. Madhumita Das v. State of Orissa, 2005 100 CutLT 465 and Dr. Smrutisudha Pattnaik v. Acharya Harihar Regional Cancer Centre, Cuttack & ors, 2017 1 ILR(Cut) 1077.

(3.) Ms. S.B. Das, learned Central Government Counsel contended that the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Review Medical Board pursuant to revised uniform guidelines for medical examination for recruitment of Gazetted Officers (GOs) and Non-Gazetted Officers (NGOs) in CAPFs & AR issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter dated 20.05.2015. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in declaring the petitioner unfit. Consequentially, the petitioner is not entitled to get employment pursuant to notice dated 24.01.2015.