MANGALU NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sarma, advocate, appearing as learned CGC for the respondents.

(2.) The case canvassed by the petitioner is that a recruitment/employment advertisement was published in Rozgar Samachar dtd. 24/1/2015, issued by the Staff Selection Commission to fill up the posts of Constable/ General Duty in various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs for short), NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Accordingly, the petitioner had participated in the said recruitment process. After successfully clearing all stages of recruitment process, the petitioner was issued an admit card for appearing in his medical examination on 27/5/2017, where the petitioner was found to be medically fit. It is projected that copy of the medical certificate was never provided to the petitioner. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner appeared in the list dtd. 2/2/2017 of candidates selected by the Staff Selection Commission for being appointed in various CAPFs. On the basis of marks obtained, the coordinating agency, i.e. the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF' for short) published a list dtd. 6/2/2017, thereby allocating the selected candidates to particular CAPFs. The petitioner was allocated in CRPF as Constable/ General Duty. Thereafter, the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Dayapur, Silchar had issued an office order dtd. 17/5/2017 for appointment of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to report for joining on or before 5/6/2017. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that he had reported for joining on the appointed date along with all documents as mentioned in the offer for appointment. The petitioner was asked to appear for medical examination by a Medical Board in Composite Hospital, CRPF. However, by a report dtd. 19/6/2017, the Medical Board had declared the petitioner as unfit owing to "Polydactyl Right hand". The Medical Officer had referred the case of the petitioner to the Review Medical Board and the Review Medical Board had examined the petitioner on 16/8/2017 and the said Review Medical Board had also declared the petitioner to be unfit due to "Polydactyl Right hand with fixed flexion deformity of accessory digit". It is alleged by the petitioner that he was not provided with a copy of both the aforesaid medical reports/opinions. However, by the impugned order dtd. 16/8/2017, the petitioner was informed that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Review Medical Board and that due to the medical report dtd. 16/8/2017 and the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable/ General Duty in CRPF was cancelled.

(3.) The learned advocate of the petitioner has submitted that the entire exercise carried out in respect of the petitioner leading to rejection of the petitioner's candidature was in violation of the "Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination Test (MET) for Combined Recruitment of Constable GD in Central Armed Force and Assam Rifles", which came into force on and from 13/7/2011 and was in force when the petitioner had participated in the selection process and was given an offer for appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner had successfully cleared all stages of recruitment process and that despite having the said medical condition, as per the admit card issued to the petitioner, he was examined on 27/5/2017 in course of the recruitment process and the CRPF doctors had found the petitioner to be medically fit. It is submitted only after the petitioner was found medically fit in the recruitment process, that the petitioner was given offer for appointment. Hence, it is submitted that the alleged deformity was not of such nature, which would take away the source of livelihood of the petitioner. By referring to the medical certificate dtd. 3/5/2016 (Annexu-8), given by a civilian doctor it is submitted that the petitioner can carry out his all normal activities with his right hand and grip strength is normal.In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) Suchitra Sethi Vs. Union of India and Ors., [W.P.(C) 16120/2016 decided by Orissa High Court on 17/8/2017], reported in 2017 Legal Eagle 225: 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 538, which relates to the same selection process; and (ii) Tarini Talukdar Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2004 (2) GLT 678: 2004 Legal Eagle 274.