Ram Nath Jha vs Dgp, Cisf & Ors. on 8 July, 2011

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Decision: 8th July 2011.

+                       W.P.(C) 1975/2011

 RAM NATH JHA                                 ..... Petitioner
                        Through:   Mr.Jitender Kumar Jha, Advocate

              versus

 DGP, CISF & ORS.                             ..... Respondents
                        Through:   Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate &
                                   Mr.Asit Tiwari, Advocate


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR


1.        Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
          see the judgment?

2.        To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.        Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

1.     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.

2.     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



W.P. (C) No.1975/2011                                    Page | 1
 medically unfit. The reason for the medically unfitness is that the
Petitioner has lost all his teeth and uses dentures.

3.     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.

4.     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.

5.     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.

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

7.     The Medical Board constituted at the Army Hospital
(Research and Referral), on re-examining the Petitioner found
W.P. (C) No.1975/2011                                  Page | 2
 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.

8.     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.

9.     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.

10.    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.

11.    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.



W.P. (C) No.1975/2011                                             Page | 3
 12.    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.

13.    No costs.

14.    Dasti.

                                  PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

JULY 08, 2011
pkb

W.P. (C) No.1975/2011 Page | 4