Ram Nath Jha vs DGP, CISF and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—This is a second round of litigation. The first was fought, when W.P.(C) No. 4705/2010, filed by the Petitioner was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26th November 2010.

The Petitioner is a ex-serviceman and applied for being employed, as an Assistant Sub Inspector, under CISF. Petitioner was successful at the process of selection completed by the Respondents. However, he was denied the fruits of his success inasmuch as at a medical examination, he was opined to be medically unfit. The reason for the medically unfitness is that the Petitioner has lost all his teeth and uses dentures.

W.P.(C) No. 4705/2010 filed by the Petitioner was disposed of with a direction that the Petitioner shall be examined by a Board of specialists at the Command Army Hospital (Research and Referral), Delhi and if the report is favourable to the Petitioner, the same shall be processed as per law by the Respondents.

While disposing of the Writ Petition, the Division Bench noted that the Petitioner lost his teeth while working with the Army and since 2002, had been using dentures. It was noted that while working in the Army, said fact of Petitioner having lost the entire set of teeth was not considered as a medical disability and that even when Petitioner retired from the Indian Army in the year 2008, he was placed in category ''Shape I''. The Division Bench noted that the standard of physical fitness stipulated by CSFS for initial recruitment were obviously targeting those who seek employment at young age and thus opined that the said physical standards should not apply to ex-servicemen, who seek re-employment after they retire beyond the age of 45 years.

It be noted that the age of the Petitioner is 51 years and thus, the Division Bench, rightly opined, that physical fitness standards has to be realistic keeping in mind that the Petitioner was then aged 50 years.

Be that as it me, right or wrong, said view taken by the Division Bench has attained finality.

The Medical Board constituted at the Army Hospital (Research and Referral), on re-examining the Petitioner found him to be fully fit and entitled to be appointed. The Board opined that as a result of the dentures used by the Petitioner, he is in a position to properly masticate and chew food.

The Respondents are still denying employment to the Petitioner by pleading that the medical fitness standards prescribed required the candidate to have sufficient number of teeth to enable him to masticate efficiently. Learned Counsel for the Respondents highlighted that the Medical Fitness Standard clearly stipulates that if a person requires dentures for efficient mastication, the same would not be treated as rendering the person medical fit.

Suffice it would be to state that the reasoning of the Division Bench is against the Respondents and having accepted the said reasoning, the Respondents cannot urge a reasoning contrary to the reasoning of the Division Bench.

The finding of the Division Bench that the Medical Standards prescribed pertained to young men and not to those who seek re-employment at the age of beyond 45 years having attained finality, the only Issue to be decided is: whether the opinion of the Expert Medical Board would require the Respondents to give employment to the Petitioner.

The opinion of the Medical Board, which has been rendered pursuant to the decision dated 26.11.2010 of the Division Bench of this Court is clear. Notwithstanding the Petitioner having lost of his teeth and is using dentures, the Board has opined that the Petitioner is able to efficiently masticate. Thus, we need to opine no further.

The Writ Petition is disposed of issuing a mandamus to the Respondents to forthwith issue the letter of offer to the Petitioner, offering him re-employment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. We deny the claim for back wages but direct that for the purpose of seniority, the Petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the merit position which he obtained at the selection.

No costs.