Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saurabh vs Staff Selection Commission on 16 November, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.4601/2015
Order reserved on :19.09.2016
Order pronounced on:16.11.2016
Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. V.N.Gaur, Member (A)
Saurabh
Aged about 21 years
S/o Shri Pyare Lal
R/o Sarai Chopta
Gali Khatikan Bhiwani
Haryana
(Candidate towards SSC recruitment) - Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No.12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building
IP Estate, New Delhi. -Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Gyanender Singh)
ORDER
Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
Heard both sides.
2. Whether, a candidate whose eye-sight is defective and who got it rectified by undergoing LASIK surgery during the process of selection, can be declared as unfit for selection, is the question falls for our consideration in this OA.
2
3. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of Annexure A-2 Employment Notification for Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Male) in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspectors in CISF Examination, 2015, the applicant applied for recruitment in Delhi Police and other police organizations under the SC category and accordingly participated in the selection process such as preliminary and main written examination and the Physical Endurance Test. He was also medically examined by the concerned Medical Board conducted on 2.9.2015 and 03.09.2015 wherein he was disqualified for reasons of "Distant vision of both eyes Right Eye 6/24 and Left Eye 6/18". Since, the said defect of distant vision being curable by LASIK surgery, the applicant had undergone the requisite eye surgery and as a result, his defective vision was rectified and since he is having 6/6 vision in both his eyes, he made an appeal seeking for re-medical examination. Accordingly, he was re-examined medically on 27.10.2015, where though no defect was found, since his vision was found as 6/6 in both his eyes, yet he was declared as 'Unfit' on account of undergoing LASIK surgery. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the present OA.
4. Heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyanender Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of the OA averments, placed reliance on the decisions of this Tribunal in OA No.145/2014 and batch dated 27.02.2015 and OA No.4244/2016 dated 12.09.2016.
6. In both the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate benches of this Tribunal, after following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was categorically held that no candidate can be disqualified on the ground 3 that he undergone LASIK surgery for rectifying his defect in the vision, once vision of the said candidate is as per the required medical standards as on the date of medical examination/review medical examination. In pursuance of the interim directions of this Tribunal dated 17.12.2015, in this OA, the applicant was allowed to participate in the remaining selection process provisionally.
7. In the circumstances and for parity of reasons, the present OA is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the applicant as medically 'fit' and to consider his case along with others, as per his merit under his category, as per rules. On such consideration, if he is appointed, he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, as per his merit, in his category, except arrears of salary. The respondents shall complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.
(V.N.Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
/uma/