Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DHANANJAY YADAV ..... Petitioner
For the Appellant: Ms. Nikita, Mr. Brijesh Yadav and Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Archana Kumari, GP and Dr. Tamal Saha, SMO, BSF
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
1. Petitioner impugns the medical examination result dated 01.06.2023 and the review medical examination dated 02.06.2023, whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit for the reason that he suffers from Ptosis left eye.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner refers to the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles to contend that mild Ptosis of less than 2 mm if not associated with any sign of aberrant regeneration or of head tilt and not interfering with vision is not to be treated as a cause for rejection. He submits that the medical examination reports do not specify as to whether the petitioner’s case falls within the permissible parameters prescribed by the guidelines or not and also as to whether guidelines have been applied or not.
3. The concerned medical officer is present in Court. He submits that the Margin Reflects Distance (MRD) reported in the review medical examination report clearly shows that petitioner suffers from Ptosis and the level of Ptosis in the left eye is certified as “moderate” which is a disqualifying condition.
4. We notice that the Guidelines for Recruitment of Medical Examination in the Central Armed Police Force and Assam Rifles stipulate as under:
2. External Examination: In external examination for direct entry officers, where magnification is required, the examiner should use Corneal loupe or an Ophthalmoscope with a plus 20-dioptre lens in the aperture or a Slit-lamp. Recruiting medical officers will use a torch without magnification. i) Lids, lashes and lacrimal apparatus. Any ptosis, blepharitis, or abnormal condition of the lachrymal apparatus should benoted. Ptosis interfering with vision or visual field is a cause for rejection till surgical correction remain successful for a period of six months. Mild ptosis of less than 2 mm if not associated with any signs aberrant regeneration or head tilt and not interfering with vision should not be a cause for rejection. Candidates with uncontrollable blepharitis, particularly with loss of eyelashes, are generally unsuitable and should be rejected. Naso-lacrimal occlusion producing epiphora or a mucocele entails rejection, unless surgery produces relief lasting for a minimum of six months. This is to be confirmed with syringing prior to endorsing fitness.”
5. Ptosis per se is not a disqualifying condition. Ptosis interfering the vision or visual filed is stipulated as a cause for rejection.
6. The Review Medical Examination Report does not specify as to whether ptosis in the case of the petitioner interferes with his vision or visual field.
7. In that view of the above, we dispose of this petition directing the respondent to conduct a fresh medical examination and render an opinion in terms of the Guidelines, particularly, in para III 2 (i) extracted herein above. The examination be conducted within four weeks from today. Petitioner shall be duly informed of the date and place for the conduct of the medical examination.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either parties.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST 11, 2023 MANOJ JAIN, J ‘rs’