Anil Kumar Mokharia v. Union of India and Others

1. The present petition has been filed seeking a review of the Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein.

2. On 25.10.2024, this Court, after considering the contents of the Review application, deemed it appropriate to direct that the petitioner be examined by a Board of Doctors at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short, „AIIMS‟), Delhi, and that the Board of Doctors should also include an Ophthalmologist.

3. We have now been supplied with the report dated 25.11.2024 from AIIMS, Delhi, which inter alia states the visual acuity (unaided) of the petitioner as under: RE LE Visual Acuity (unaided) Distance Near N[6] N[6]

4. The report, however, further states as under: “Final impression: No evidence of flap-based refractive surgery present in both eyes. However, the possibility of flap-less refractive surgery cannot be ruled out.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above opinion of the Medical Board cannot be used to deny employment to the petitioner inasmuch as it has clearly found that there was no evidence of flap-based refractive surgery and further merely opined that the possibility of flap-less refractive surgery cannot be ruled out. He submits that in such a scenario, the benefit of doubt must go to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that any doubt should, in fact, be sufficient to debar the petitioner from appointment. He submits that the medical standards in the Armed Forces are strict and, therefore, any possibility of the petitioner not being fully fit as per the Medical standards, should be good enough to reject the candidature of the petitioner.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. In the present case, there are certain peculiar facts, which need to be noticed by us.

9. The Medical examination of the petitioner had taken place on 19.07.2023, wherein apart from other ailments, his candidature was rejected on the ground of his defective vision, with the vision in both, the right and the left, eyes being reported as 6/9.

10. On the very next day, during the Review Medical examination, the petitioner was not declared unfit for the other ailments, however, he was declared unfit for appointment due to diminished visual acuity, with the right eye being recorded as 6/9 and the left eye being recorded as 6/6. Therefore, apart from the absence of other ailments, even the vision in the left eye of the petitioner was found to be normal.

11. The petitioner, with the present petition, had placed on record the reports of his examination conducted by the Government Hospital Sikar, Rajasthan, on the very next day. These reports found his visual acuity to be 6/6 in both the eyes. Armed with these reports, the petitioner had approached this Court, and this Court, vide Order dated 23.08.2023, had directed that the petitioner be subjected to a fresh Medical Board, which was to be constituted by the Army Research & Referral Hospital (in short, „R&R‟).

12. The R&R Hospital, in its report dated 30.09.2023, had inter alia reported that the corneal findings are suggestive of a post refractive surgery status.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our reference to the Pentacam Scan report, which was conducted at the Swai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur (in short, „SMS‟), and subsequently Sikar. The petitioner claims that these findings are almost identical to those of the AIIMS, as stated in its report dated 25.11.2024.

14. As noted hereinabove, the Medical Board at AIIMS has merely stated that while there is “No evidence of flap-based refractive surgery present in both eyes, the possibility of flap-less refractive surgery cannot be ruled out.”

15. We are of the opinion that merely on basis of suspicion, the employment opportunity of the petitioner cannot be denied. Therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for reviewing our Order dated 19.10.2023, which based its opinion only on the medical report of the R&R Hospital. In light of the above facts, the conclusion drawn in that report does not appear to be correct.