Vikas Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

1



 



 


 




 !
"#
!$%&%"'(
 ) )


 

 


 

 

 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE  

  
 !





 """"

*
)
#


 $! 




%
&


' 

(

 

)( 

*+ -,--

.!

.






/





!
/
  ' 
!






 
 

/ 

. 
 !
/ 

 
(
0(



   
1 ,23-,*4

*5 ,+ -,*4
6$*7
/
/
 

!
% 




! 

!





%/
68 
7


%
%( 

9

!
 !


.
 (

!
!
.
 
. ! 

! 



  .  
 
/(
!
: 

.
! 

/

;

 (
6<7
 
% 
 
= /

-4 -,*+


 
 
 
  (
9
?  

 .


 ( 


8 
@

!
<!
A
 !

2
%( 
6B8@ <C7

(

9
 
@
!


;

% 

*5 ,5 -,*+
6$D7

/

;

 (
6<7

 
8@ <
%( 


:

.
B>3>E

(

 

 



*- ,5 -,*+
6$47
(
!
$: 
.!
.
!



/

!
F 


F(.

 

8 
@

!
!!

6B8@ C7

,5 -,*+
6$**7 



(

! 
/

F 
6! 

 
  (7



 
 

  (
9



!
.  

.

/ 







!
 

9

/
!
/

!! 
 


#


 (


 



*5 ,5 -,*+
6$D7

/

8@ <
%( 




 

!
!



!
!



! !

 3 

,5 -,*+
6$**7


!
F 

8@ 

.!
.




  (
9



!

(

 
/
$ : 
 
 

9
! 
F 

/ 


 
(
0(
 





!


! 


9




 
 
.
  
/

 !
.

 


!! ?
 
 
 
!









!  G/




.



!!
!
.
! 

!





%/
68 
7
.  

 


*- *+


)/
!
6 
 7

-,*4

!
.
. 


! 



 

%/
. 9 

 (


3
!
:  
 


! !
/
% 
 (

 (

!C

 
%!


9


% 
 (
6$H7

!
F 
% 
 
= /
! (


<
 (
;

 !
 (3!
: 





-4 -,*+




/
 (
 
IF3<
 
  (
9 J

!
!
/




 

;

% 
6; 7

/

8@ <
%( 
.

 !

!




;
% 
6

7
(
/

<
 (
.

/
.




.
: 


F






!


!
! !

)
8   
 !



!

.


! !

/

!
F 
!





F







9




/
 

 3 


8@ <
%( 


!
F 

8@ 

.
!

 
: (




F 




,5 -,*+
6$**7

I




   
  
     
J

further observed: "In view of findings above, the fitness of the candidate for the said post may be decided by the concerned authorities as per rules." In wake of this observation, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 12.17 of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015:- "Candidates who are finally recommended for appointment as Constable shall be got medically examined by the Civil Surgeon. A certificate in the prescribed form (10.64) signed by the Civil Surgeon personally, is an essential qualification for enrolment. The examination by the Civil Surgeon will be conducted in accordance with instruction issued by the Health

4
Department and he will test the eye sight, speech and hearing of the candidate, his freedom from physical defects, organic or contagious disease or any other defect or tendency likely to render him unfit, and his age. The conditions of police service make it necessary that the medical examination of candidates should be strict. Candidates shall be rejected for any disease or defect which is likely to render them unfit for the active duties of police officer."

Accordingly,
 

!
F 

PGIMS, Rohtak, a certificate dated 15.11.2017 (P-14) was issued by Deputy Civil Surgeon, 2nd BN. HAP, Madhuban, in Form No. 10.64. In the said certificate, the Civil Surgeon observed that he could not discover the appellant to have any "disaseconatotional affection badly firmed expect squint (LEFT Divergent Squint for near and distant vision." He further recorded that the appellant was "unfit as per report given by PGIMS Medical Board Rohtak and Ophthalmologists opinion from Civil Hospital Faridabad as per instruction under application no. 12 of Haryana Police."

However, even after having observed that the appellant-candidate had a squint and that he was medically unfit in terms of both the medical reports of Rohtak and Faridabad, somehow, the Civil Surgeon proceeded to note that he did not consider it a disqualification for employment in the office of Haryana Police. It is in reference to this note as well, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the authorities ought to have obtained another opinion from the Medical Experts or constituting another Board. However, suffice it to say, these observations recorded by the Civil Surgeon pale into insignificance in light of Rule 12.

5
requires the candidate to be free from physical defects which were likely to render him unfit. Ex facie, the purport and intent of Rule 12.17 in directing medical examination through Civil Surgeon and thereupon requiring him to issue a certificate is to sieve out unfit candidates. Once the candidate was observed to be unfit, rejection of his candidature, in terms of Rule 12.17, was inevitable.

Likewise, the argument that although vide certificate dated 15.11.2017 (P-14), the appellant was declared medically unfit, but apparently, the said opinion was simply based upon two previous reports (ibid), and not on any medical re-examination of the appellant, and thus, the certificate (P-14) was inconsequential and liable to be ignored, lacks conviction. A bare analysis of the said certificate/report reveals that apart from the reference to the two previous reports by PGIMS, Rohtak, and Civil Hospital, Faridabad, upon examining the appellant, the authorities had observed, "I do hereby certified that in have examined Vikas Kumar S/o Sh. Guljar Singh village Talheri Rangran P.O. Manu Majra, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala a candidate for employment in the police department and cannot discover that he has any disaseconatotional affection badly firmed expect squint (LEFT Divergent Squint for near and distant vision...."
?
  





)! 






(





!! 

!

!
!



!
: 

-4 -,*+

% 
 (
= /
/

!
  (




.




(
F 




.
8   
!
%(
1

.
.!
! 


 !






-2 -,*+
6$*
:
.
 


 
*4
A
>7


6
!!

(!
: 




.

 (
 
B>3>
F<$  
  (
9 C
(
 
! (

!
 

/ 
 
/

 
(
0(



.


!
! !

-5 -,*+
/

 
.

  
  


        

   


    
  

!"






  
  # 

$
   
 


 %

 



  


  



   



 


   


  



      


     
!

 


 




&
@

.


/ 
.
 


  
.

 (
 

)( 
 
/

 
(
0(

#


/(
/ 

 

!! (
 

+
,-















,













 
,- -,-H


 

?
 (
3

K<

?
 /
K<