Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. In the present Original Applicatiion, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a. Quash and set aside thee impugned order dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure–A1); and
b. Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint thhe applicant to the post of Subb-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police;
c. Accord all consequential beneefits;
d. Award costs of the proceedinggs; and
e. Pass any other order/direcction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant.”
2. Narratting the facts of the case, leearned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant participated in the SSC 2012 recruitment for the poost of Sub-Inspector (Executive), Delhi Police. Following litigation, the final result was redrawn, resulting in his selection and the forwarding of his dossier to the Dellhi Police in 2018 for appointmennt processing. Upon receipt of the dossier, he was called vide letter dated 12.099.2018 to report on 17.09.2018 for collection of the offer of appointment. However, on 18.09.2018, he sought time on medical grounds and was permitted to jooin the next batch. Similarly, upon being called again to report on 06.06.2019, he sought extension due to severe lowwer back pain, and by PHQ memo dated 20.06.2019, he wass again allowed to join with the subsequent batch. When basic training was scheduled to commence from 01.09.2020, he was directed to report on 27.08.2020, but havving tested Covid-19 positive on 25.08.2020, he sought tiime. The respondents extended the reporting deadline up to 09.09.2020. However, thhe applicant was hospitalized on 08.09.2020 due to Covid-rellated complications, discharged on 16.09.2020, and advisedd rest. Despite this, he wass directed to report by 21.09.2020, and though he submitteed medical documents evidencing continuing illness, hiis candidature was ultimately cancelled vide order datedd 27.10.2020, leading to the preseent O.A. seeking quashing of the said order and direction forr appointment with conseqquential benefits.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, leaarned counsel for the respondentss submitted that the recruitment process in question is governed by the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and Stand ing Order No. 321. It was statedd that though the appplicant was selected pursuant too the redrawn result dated 25.08.2014, he failed to report to collect the offer of appointment on five occasions—17.09.2018, 06.06.20019, 27.08.2020, 09.09.2020, and 21.09.2020—each time citing health reasons. Addding further, learned counsel submitted that while the appplicant was granted oppoortunities in 2018 and 2019 to joinn with subsequent batches, and even exempted till 09.09.20020 on account of Covid-19, his further request based on hospitalization was declinedd on 18.09.2020, with a final direcction to report by 21.09.20020. As he failed to do so and insttead sought further time, a show-cause notice was issued on 30.09.2020, his reply dated 15.10.2020 was duly considdered, and his candidatuure was cancelled on 27.10.2020 for his repeated failure to report without any convincing justification.
4. In rejooinder to the arguments puut forth by the learned counsel forr the respondents, learnned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have wrongly portrayed five separate opportunities when, in fact, the three dates in 2020 relate to a single training cycle during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemmic. Learned counsel emphasized that the applicant was Covid-positive, subsequently hospitalized, under preescribed medical rest, and later suffered from post-Covid complications, all duly supported by contemporaneous medical records and communications. It was submitted that the impugned cancellationn order is based on presumptions of disinterest rather than a fair and compassionate consideration of the applicant’s medical incapacity durinng an unprecedented public healtth crisis. The learned cou nsel for the applicant, therefore, reeiterates the prayer for quaashing the order dated 27.10.2020 and for issuance of apprropriate directions for applicant’s appointment with consequuential benefits.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on reccord.
6. ANALYYSIS :
6.1 The employer has a duty to consider reasonable accommodaation for a legitimate mediical reason, such as a delayed joinning due to illness, particullarly during a national pandemic. While the respondents have strongly argued that multiple opportunities were granted to the applicant, it is undisputed that the applicant wass unable to join on account of valid medical reasons, inccluding being COVID-positive.
6.2 There is no contention on the paart of the respondents that the appplicant failed to provide timely intimation or supporting medical documentation reegarding his illness on the various occasions in question. It is also undisputed that the pandemic constitutes a genuine hardship and can be treated as a case of force majeure.
6.3 The priinciples laid down in Civiil Appeal No. 1081 of 2017 – S. Krishna Sridhar vs. T he State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., decided on 19.01.2021, were subsequently followed in Dr. Rohit Kumar vs. Secretary, Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 20021 arising out of SLP(C) No. 3824 of 2021], decided on 15.07.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Cout observed as under:
“40. In S. Krishna Sradha (suprra), the condition of “fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of r ules and regulations” for grant of the relief of admission too the next session to a caandidate wrongly denied admission in an earlier session, is a sequel to and flows frrom the condition that there should be no fault on the part of that candidate. The Couurt has elaborated on the condition of “no fault of the candidate” to ensure that reelief is not claimed as a matter of right for any lapse or innfraction of rules on the paart of the candidate by reecourse to the plea of the candidate not being at fault. To cite an example, an individuual candidate cannot as a matter of right claim re- lief whhen for inability to fulfil a condition of admission for reaasons such as computer crash at his end, inability to raaise funds within time for payment of admission fees, inability to adhere to time schedules by reason of vehicular breakdown, illness, bereavement etc. which may noot be within the control of thhe candidate, as otherwise it would be impossible for educational institutions to complete the admission process, in time, when there are a large number of applicants.
41. In this case, there has not been any lapse on the part of the Appellant. The Appellantt could not joint the post graduate course in PGI Chandiggarh for the January 2021 session for reasons attributable to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though technically, the said Respon- dents cannot be said to have acted illegally or in breach of rules and reegulations, in denying the Apppellant Study Leave, in apprehension of rise in COVID-19 cases and the exigency of availability of doctors in full strength, as far as possible.
42. The Appellant, who could not join the post graduate course, due to the denial of Study Leave by the Government pursuant to a leggiti- mate policy decision and in response to the call of duuty, cannot now be denied reelief on the hyper technical groound that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had not breached any rules or regulations.
Itt would be a travesty of justtice to deny relief to the Appellant, when the Appellant had to make a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity.”
6.4. In the instant case, the applicantt challenges Annexure A/1, whereby his candidature for appointment to the post of Sub-Insppector (Executive) in Delhhi Police – 2012 was cancelled. Upon selection, the applicant was issued an offer of appointmment and was required to jooin the post. However, due to meddical and personal hardshiips, he was unable to report. Subbsequently, vide letter daated 13.08.2020, the applicant w as once again required to join. On 25.08.2020, the applicant tested COVID-19 posittive and informed the respondentss on 26.08.2020. The respondents then directed him to repport by 09.09.2020, but the applicant again communicated that he was hospitaalized due to COVID-related com plications. Thereafter, the applicant was issued a show-cause notice dated 30.09.2020, to which he replied with supporrting documentary evidencce. The rejection order, however, disregards his documented medical and personal hardships. The observations in the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, particularly the remark that “It shows that you are not serioous to join Delhi Police as S.I.” are contrary to the medical records and advice. The respoondents ought to have taken proper note of the medical advice and discharge reports, whiich were entirely ignored.
6.5 The reecords from the Governmment Hospital, Delhi, dated 21.099.2020, reflect the applicant’s medical condition as follows:
True copy of aforesaid record datedd 21.09.2020
6.6. The appplicant was advised to reest for 10 days as per the medicall prescription dated 23.099.2020. Subsequently, he was graanted a medical fitness certificate to join duty from 20.10.2020, vide Medical Fitnness Certificate dated 19.10.2020.
6.7. In the peculiar facts and circummstances of the case, the applicant cannot be held at fault. The impugned order does not even specify which rule or regulation was allegedly breached by the applicant. The respoondents ought to have reasonably accommodated the applicant’s joining, especially in light of his medical condition, which was beyond his control, and considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemiic at that time.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1. In vieww of the above discussionss, the impugned office order dated 27.10.2020 is hereby quuashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to alloww the applicant to join the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive)) within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copyy of this order.
7.2. It is clarified that the applicant shall not be entitled to any senioriity or monetary benefits prior to joining, in accordance with the principle of “No Work, No Pay.” All benefits shaall accrue from the date of actual joining.
7.3. The O riginal Application is alloowed in the aforesaid terms. Pendding M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
