AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
Present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(1)To direct the Respondents to conduct the fresh re-medical examination of applicant by a duly constituted and competent Medical Board for the post of Sub Inspector (Hindi Translator) in CRPF and if found FIT (found weight within normal range) in the fresh Review Medical Board, the consequential reliefs be granted to the applicant.
(ii)To pass any other order or direction in favour of Applicant which this Hon'ble CAT (PB) deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.”
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Hindi Translator) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission dated 05.06.2025. The applicant appeared in the written examination on 12.08.2025 and, upon being declared successful, was called for the Physical Standard Test (PST) as well as the medical examination. The medical examination was conducted on 17.08.2026 by the duly constituted Medical Board. Subsequently, the applicant was also examined by the Review Medical Board on the same date, wherein his candidature was rejected on the ground of being overweight. It is fairly admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the prescribed weight for a candidate of the applicant's category was 77 kg, whereas the applicant's weight was found to be 89 kg.
In support of claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 13821/2024, titled Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Aman Singh and Batch, decided on 24.10.2024. Particularly, he refers to paragraph 10.38 (vi), which is reproduced below:-
vi) The aspect of "curability" assumes significance in many cases. Certain medical conditions may be curable. The Court has to be cautious in dealing with such cases. If the condition is itself specified, in the applicable Rules or Guidelines, as one which, by its very existence, renders the candidate unfit, the Court may discredit the aspect of curability. If there is no such stipulation, and the condition is curable with treatment, then, depending on the facts of the case, the Court may opine that the Review Medical Board ought to have given the candidate a chance to have his condition treated and cured. That cannot, however, be undertaken by the Court of its own volition, as a Court cannot hazard a medical opinion regarding curability, or the advisability of allowing the candidate a chance to cure the ailment. Such a decision can be taken only if there is authoritative medical opinion, from a source to which the respondents themselves have sought opinion or referred the candidate, that the condition is curable with treatment. In such a case, if there is no binding time frame within which the Review Medical Board is to pronounce its decision on the candidate's fitness, the Court may, in a given case, direct a fresh examination of the candidate after she, or he, has been afforded an opportunity to remedy her, or his, condition. It has to be remembered that the provision for a Review Medical Board is not envisaged as a chance for unfit candidates to make themselves fit, but only to verify the correctness of the decision of the initial Medical Board which assessed the candidate.”
Learned counsel for the applicant further refers to the judgment dated 10.09.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10641/2024 Sonu Rajput Vs. UOI and Anr wherein in paragraph 2 the factual position of the said case was summarized. The petitioner therein was declared unfit on account of over weight. He submit that the Hon’ble Delhi High had directed the respondents to conduct a medical re-examination because of the facts and circumstances of the condition prevailing in that case. He refers to paragraph 12 of the said judgment which is reproduced below:-
“12.This period of six weeks envisaged under the Guidelines to enable a female candidate to regain her medical fitness after going through a pregnancy, in our considered opinion, is extremely short as it may not always be possible for a female candidate, who has undergone a pregnancy, to regain her complete medical fitness and lose the weight within six weeks which she may have gained during nine months of her pregnancy as, even under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, a much longer period of absence from duty has been envisaged. We, therefore, direct the respondents to examine this provision of the Guidelines in consultation with the concerned medical specialists to consider providing a reasonable time within which a female candidate is required to regain her medical fitness after her pregnancy. The matter, be therefore, placed before the Additional Director General (Medical), Central Armed Police Forces, for this purpose.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that despite the respondents inviting applications from female candidates for various posts which were earlier earmarked only for male candidates, are continuing to use the terms Constable (Washer Man) instead of using a gender neutral nomenclature. Even though, we find that the petitioner is justified in raising this grievance, we are refraining from commenting on this aspect but we hope that the respondents will, themselves, look into this aspect and, suitably amend the nomenclature of such posts which are open to female candidates as well.”
Citing the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already reduced his weight with the permissible limit as mentioned by the respondents.
Issue notice. Mr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance service, accepts notice. He submits that, at the time of applying for the post of Sub-Inspector (Hindi Translator), the applicant was fully aware of the prescribed weight limit as stipulated in the advertisement. Despite being aware of the said requirement, the applicant applied for the post and subsequently appeared in the written examination and the PST. Learned counsel submits that, if the applicant was keen to secure appointment to the said post, he ought to have made adequate efforts from the date of his application till the Medical Examination to bring his weight within the prescribed limit, particularly when he was fully aware that he would be required to undergo medical examination at a subsequent stage of the recruitment process. In view of this, learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no scope for directing the respondents to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant. In view thereof, he submits that the present OA deserves to be dismissed in limine.
Heard both sides.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable on their facts and circumstances. In the case of Sonu Rajput (Supra), concerning the overweight of a female candidate, the candidate was pregnant at the time of the medical examination. In view of this peculiar circumstance, the Hon’ble High Court had directed that a fresh medical examination be conducted as a special measure. As regards the other judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant Aman Singh (supra), the facts and circumstances therein are materially different from those obtaining in the present case.
We find merit in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that, if the applicant was keen to secure appointment to the said post, he ought to have made adequate efforts from the date of his application till the date of Medical Examination to bring his weight within the prescribed limit, particularly when he was fully aware that he would be required to undergo a medical examination at a subsequent stage of the recruitment process.
9. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, the present OA is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.