Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sonu vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 December, 2020

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon

$~VC-14
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 9669/2020
       SONU                                               ..... Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr. Yashvardhan S.Som, Mr. Sanjay
                                         Singh and Mr. D.Kumar, Advocates
                            Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                     Through:            Mr. Anil Dabas, Advocate for
                                         respondents No.1 to 4

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                    ORDER

       %            02.12.2020
       [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

       C.M. Appl. No.30952/2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9669/2020 & CM APPL. No. 30953/2020 (for ex-parte interim relief)

3. The petitioner, a candidate for recruitment as an Airman in the respondents Indian Air Force (IAF), is aggrieved from cancellation of his candidature on the ground of medical unfitness.

4. The Medical Board found the petitioner unfit on account of, (i) Pilonidal Sinus and (ii) Perianal Fistula. The Appeal Medical Board also found the petitioner medically unfit on the same two grounds.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that between the dates of examination by the Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board, the petitioner had got himself surgically operated for Pilonidal Sinus and thus the finding of the Appeal Medical Board, still finding the petitioner to be unfit on account of Pilonidal Sinus, is incorrect. With respect to Perianal Fistula, it is contended that both, the Medical Board and the Appeal Medical Board erred in finding the petitioner unfit on the said ground. It is contended that a Perianal Fistula requires two openings but the MRI got done by the petitioner does not support the same.

6. The petitioner, in proof of the surgery got done by him, as Annexure P-12 to the petition, has filed his Discharge Summary/Certificate and which shows the petitioner to have been required to go for review on 20th July, 2020. The petitioner has not filed the report of the review done on 20th July, 2020 and has instead filed the certificate dated 2nd November, 2020, Annexure P-19 to the petition, to the effect that at that time, his wound had healed and he was fit for joining duty. The counsel for the petitioner however draws our attention to Annexure P-16 to the petition, being the certificate dated 4th August, 2020, but the said certificate records that the wound of petitioner was then still healing, making it evident that as per the documents of the petitioner himself, the wound had not healed on 4th August, 2020. The possibility that the wound had not healed on 12th August, 2020 also, when the petitioner appeared before the Appeal Medical Board, cannot be ruled out.

7. Moreover the petitioner has filed this petition against the action aggrieved from, of August, 2020, only now and this delay can be fatal since the grievance is with respect to the recruitment process. We have enquired from the counsel for the respondents IAF appearing on advance notice, whether the recruitment process stands concluded.

8. The counsel for the respondents IAF states that he will have to obtain instructions.

9. We have also enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, the provision in the relevant Manual of Medical Examination and Medical Boards, in accordance with which the Medical Boards are conducted i.e. whether immediately after surgery a person is eligible for recruitment or after six months or more, as is found in a number of cases.

10. The counsel for the petitioner though has referred us to the United Kingdom (U.K.) Joint Service Handbook of Medical Fitness for recruitment in this regard, but not the Indian Manual. If the petitioner were to seek recruitment in U.K. Defence Services, only then the said handbook was relevant and the same has no meaning to the petitioner seeking recruitment in the Indian Air Force.

11. However since the counsel for the petitioner is young, it is deemed appropriate to give time.

12. The counsel for the respondents IAF to, in the meanwhile, procure the records of the Medical Examination and Appeal Medical W.P. (C) 9669/2020 Page 3 of 4 Examinations of the petitioner, the requisite Medical Manual as well as the status of the recruitment process. The respondents to also have a medical personnel of the respondents IAF, in a position to answer our queries, available on the next date of hearing.

13. List on 11th January, 2021.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ASHA MENON, J DECEMBER 02, 2020 mw W.P. (C) 9669/2020 Page 4 of 4