Do not reject candidature of successful Delhi Judicial Service aspirant only on account of his renal transplant, directs Delhi HC

Stating that the Civil Services Examination Rule declaring all candidates having transplanted organs, except corneal transplant, as unfit was archaic, the Delhi High Court has directed the authorities concerned to not reject the candidature of a successful Delhi Judicial Services aspirant only on account of his renal transplant..The Judgement was passed by a Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Sanjeev Narula..The Petitioner had successfully cleared the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS) which were notified on 13.11.2018..After the Petitioner accepted the offer of appointment made to him, he was called for medical examination..Upon examination, the Petitioner’s medical report declared him to be "Unfit on account of Renal Transplant" in terms of Clause 17 of Appendix III of the Civil Services Examination, (CSE) Rules..Before the High Court, it was the Petitioner's grivenace that in spite of the medical parameters of the Petitioner having been found to be within normal limits, he was declared medically “unfit” only on account of organ transplant..It was submitted that Clause was framed way back in the year 1964 when medical science had not progressed enough to permit organ transplant and was thus archaic and divorced from the realities of life..The Petitioner added that the nature of Petitioner's prospective job as a Judicial Officer required him to function at the place of his posting in a Court/ office environment and did not entail excessive physical exercise..The Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that as per Rule 33 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, residuary matters such as medical fitness of the candidates, were dealt by the Rules of the Union of India. The Respondents were, therefore, bound to follow the Rules contained in Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE Rules. .After considering the submissions made by the parties, the Court noted that the Petitioner underwent renal transplant in the 2015 and has remained stable and normal since then..It further noted that while the certificate issued by the Petitioner's doctor certified that he could perform normal duties, the medical report pursuant to the DJS offer had not declared him medically "unfit" on account of him not being able to discharge the duties of a Judicial Officer due to his medical condition..The Court thus opined, "It is clear to us that Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE Rules, which, inter alia, provides that all candidates having transplanted organs should be declared "unfit" except corneal transplant, is an archaic rule, which cannot stand in the wake of medical advancements which have taken place over the decades and since the said rule was framed in the year 1964. The same is extremely widely worded and proceeds on the assumption that persons who undergo any organ transplant (except corneal transplant) cannot lead a stable, fruitful and healthy normal life. This assumption can no longer be justified in the light of the medical advancements made over the decades.".The Court further relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Ranjit Kumar Rajak Vs. State Bank of India and said,...right to life and liberty of a person cannot be denied or depleted only on account of his medical condition, when such medical condition is not such as to interfere with his normal functioning on the post for which he has offered his candidature, and he has been found to be otherwise competent for selection.Delhi High Court.In view of the above, the Court directed the Respondents to not to reject the Petitioner's candidature only on account of him being declared medically "unfit". . The Court added that upon his appointment, the Petitioner would retain his notional seniority along with his other batchmates and would be deemed to have joined his post along with his other batchmates..The Petitioner was represented by Advocates Harpreet Singh, Gagan Kumar Singhal, Suhani Mathur, Atul Sharma..High Court was represented by Advocates Sanjoy Ghose, Rhishabh Jetley, Naman Jain..Delhi Govt was represented by Advocates Avnish Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh..Read the Judgement: