Top
News Updates

CSE Rule Declaring Persons Who Had Undergone Organ Transplant Unfit For Selection Is Archaic: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Karan Tripathi
10 March 2020 8:36 AM GMT
CSE Rule Declaring Persons Who Had Undergone Organ Transplant Unfit For Selection Is Archaic: Delhi HC [Read Order]
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Delhi High Court has held that the candidature of a Delhi Judicial Services aspirant cannot be rejected on the ground that he had undergone a renal transplant.

While directing against the rejection of the candidature, the Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Sanjeev Narula opined that the provision in Civil Services Examination Rules which declare persons having transplanted organs as unfit for candidature, as an archaic provision.

In the present case, the Petitioner had cleared the Delhi Judicial Services Exam and was subsequently called for medical examination.

Upon conducting the said medical examination, the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had undergone a renal transplant, which disqualifies him under Clause 17 of Appendix III of the Civil Services Examination, (CSE) Rules.

The aforesaid Clause 17 states that all candidates having transplanted organs should be declared "unfit", except corneal transplant. It is on the basis of the said clause, that the RML Hospital declared the Petitioner as 'unfit' as he had undergone a renal transplant in 2015.

The Petitioner had argued that despite his renal transplant conducted way back in 2015, he is leading a normal life and is taking the prescribed medications thereof.

He further submitted that the said transplant could not be claimed to be a reason to medically disqualify him, since the said transplant and the petitioner‟s present medical condition has

absolutely no bearing on the discharge of the duties and responsibilities that the Petitioner would be required to perform as a Judicial Officer.

Petitioner had challenged the said clause by arguing that it was framed way back in the year 1964, when medical science had not progressed enough to permit organ transplant with as much success and certainty, as has been achieved with progress in medical research & development over the decades.

'the aforesaid clause is archaic and divorced from the realities of life', the Petitioner submitted.

Further, it was informed to the court that Parliament had enacted the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 to regulate organ transplant in the wake of organ transplant becoming medically feasible.

The Petitioner also submitted that the nature of

job that the petitioner would be expected to perform upon his appointment as a Judicial Officer, would require him to function at the place of his posting in a Court/ office environment which does not entail excessive physical exercise.

To counter the same, the Respondents argued that since Rule 33 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules

specifically provides that in relation to the residuary matters, the rules of the Union of India would be attracted, and since there is no specific rule relating to medical fitness of the candidates who apply for DJS, the respondent is bound to follow the rules contained in Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE

Rules.

While analysing the records, the court observed that the medical certificates issued to the Petitioner state that he has been stable for past 5 years and that he can perform normal duties.

The court further highlighted that:

'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 court noted that the assumptions made in the said provision can no longer be justified in the light of the medical advancements made over the

decades.

While directing the Respondents to not to reject the candidature of the Petitioner, the court observed that:

'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.'

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]



Next Story