The Delhi high court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Manmohan and Asha Menon remarked that when no mala fide can be attributable to the doctors constituting the Medical Boards, the opinion formed by them that a candidate is not medically fit for appointment is to be preferred to the opinion of private or government doctors to the contrary, as the doctors belonging to the CAPFs are well aware of the demands of the duties of the Forces and the terrain in which they have to work and the challenges they are required to face. Si Gd Pradeep V Union Of India & Ors)
Facts of the Case
The facts of the case date back to 10.12.2020 when the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Review Medical Board after going through the Colour Doppler Test. He claimed that he was never communicated either verbally or in writing as to the outcome of the said test, but he was orally informed that he was found medically unfit on the ground of “Varicose Veins Right Lower Limb”.
On 12th December 2020 got himself examined by way of Colour Doppler Right Lower Limb at Rajasthani Diagnostic and MRI Centre and was found to be normal by the Specialist Government Medical Officer of the Government Hospital. The medical report from RMB acts as a hindrance to his post of AC/GD.
Hence, the present writ petition was filed.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioner submitted that great wrong had been perpetrated on the petitioner as the respondents had applied standards that were meant for ‘entry level direct recruitment candidates’ to the post of GOs/NGOs in the CAPFs and Assam Rifles (AR),while the petitioner admittedly had been in service since 2012 and was in SHAPE-1 and had applied to the post of AC/GD only for promotion and had to be assessed medically on standards prescribed for promotees.
Learned counsel also submitted that this court in several cases, where the candidates had been declared medically unfit on the plea of “Varicose Veins”, had directed the respondents to conduct a medical examination by an independent Board constituted by the Commandant, Army Hospital (R&R) and that a similar relief be also extended to the petitioner and he be directed to be examined at the R&R Hospital.
Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.2332-2333/2018 titled Ct/CD Rambabu Chandrawanshi v. Union of India and Ors., and submitted that the order of this court in W.P.(C)4765/2015 filed by CT/DC Rambabu Chandrawanshi declining to direct the said petitioner to be medically examined by a RMB had been set aside by the Supreme Court and that this court ought to be guided by the view taken by the Supreme Court.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench observed, “There is no dispute that the existence of “Varicose Veins” is considered as unfitness under the Uniform Guidelines for Medical Examination. The petitioner had been examined through Colour Doppler and was found to be suffering from “Varicose Veins Right Lower Limb”. The very fact that the petitioner has endorsed the report of the RMB to the effect that he had undertaken surgery for “Varicose Veins” confirms the fact that he was suffering from that medical condition. The conclusions drawn by the first Medical Board and the RMB, therefore, are not incorrect or based on erroneous assessment. So, neither of the two Reports can be rejected on that ground.
In any case, this court in various cases, including in W.P.(C) 9191/2020 titled Vikash Choudhry v. Union of India & Others and W.P.(C) 10783/2020 titled KM. Priyanka v. Union of India & Others, copies whereof have been filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, has held that when no mala fide can be attributable to the doctors constituting the Medical Boards, the opinion formed by them that a candidate is not medically fit for appointment is to be preferred to the opinion of private or government doctors to the contrary, as the doctors belonging to the CAPFs are well aware of the demands of the duties of the Forces and the terrain in which they have to work and the challenges they are required to face.”
The bench Relied on the case of Sunil Kumar Singh v Union of India [MANU/DE/0428/2017] to conclude that for eligibility, LDCE has to be treated at par with direct recruitment and not with promotion. In the present case, “the advertisement notified that the candidates who qualified the written examination, PST/PET and appear in the interview process were to be shortlisted for undergoing medical examination which was to be conducted as per the “Revised Medical Guidelines 2015”.
The bench dismissing the petition noted:
“Before concluding, we must deal with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was in SHAPE-1 as per the Annual Medical Examination held on 5th September, 2020 and could not have been found unfit by the Medical Boards two-three months later. The advertisement in question once again provides the answer.
In para 8 of the advertisement (at page 52 of the e-file), it is notified as follows:
“Medical Standards: (i) The candidates must be in Medical Category SHAPE-1.
(ii) It should, however, be clearly understood that the Government of India reserves to itself, absolute discretion to reject or accept any candidate after considering the report of the Medical Board.
(iii) Medical examination will be conducted as per revised Medical Guidelines issued by MHA dated 20-05-2015 and amended from time to time for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the CAPFs and AR.”
Thus, it is clear, that being in SHAPE-1 is a mandatory condition to apply to appear for and participate in the selection process. It does not exempt the candidate from being medically examined by the Medical Board on clearing the examinations. Rather, para 8 proclaims loud and clear that the Government of India has reserved to itself the “absolute discretion” to reject or accept a candidate based on the reports of the Medical Boards. These conditions were never challenged by the petitioner. On the contrary, he willingly accepted all these conditions including that he would be assessed for medical fitness on standards prescribed for recruitment of GOs and NGOs and applied for and participated in the selection process. He was aware that he is an in-service candidate and appearing for the LDCE. But he made no grievance at the time of applying for the vacancy of AC/GD that the medical standards prescribed were improper.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed along with pending applications, if any, as being devoid of merits.”
Read Judgment;
SOURCE ; .latestlaws.com/
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments