Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DR. YATIN MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradeep Gupta with Mr. Parinav Gupta and Mr. Rahul Kumar Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Pinky Pawar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
1. Petitioner, inter alia, seeks setting aside of the final merit list dated 18.02.2021 whereby petitioner has been rejected on the ground of him being declared medically unfit.
2. Respondents invited applications for grant of Short Service Commission in the Armed Forces Medical Services. Petitioner had applied for the same and qualified the Initial written examination and also the interview. However, in the medical examination, the Special Medical Board declared the petitioner as UNFIT on account of inter alia ‘V’ shaped deep palate (Dental).
3. Petitioner was further examined by the Appeal Medical Board on 09.10.2020 which also declared petitioner UNFIT due to nonfunctional Occlusion on left side. However, with regard to the other grounds for which the petitioner was declared unfit by the Special Medical Board, he was found fit.
4. Petitioner, thereafter, applied for a Review Medical Board, the Review Medical Board held on 23.12.2020, once again found the petitioner as UNFIT for Less Dental Points (Non-Functional occlusion on left side).
5. The original record of Medical Board Examination of the petitioner has been produced before us and has been perused by us.
6. The Review Medical Board noticed that petitioner had 28 total No. of teeth and total No. of dental points as 12.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents have incorrectly declared the petitioner as unfit for the reason that as per the medical standards, Occlusion has to be such which would hamper his functioning as a doctor.
8. Reliance is also placed on the Medical Standards and Procedure of Medical Examination for Officer Entries into Army (Annexure P-2) Clause 6 (e)(ix) of the same reads as under:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if Malocclusion of teeth is hampering efficient mastication, maintenance of oral hygiene or general nutrition or performance of duties efficiently, only in that situation the same becomes a ground for rejection.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the medical standards prescribed should be set aside as they are unrealistic and are made applicable even if the alleged defect may not affect the functionality of the candidate in performing his duties. He submits that Petitioner is seeking appointment as a doctor and his dental condition is not going to affect his performance of duties as a doctor.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Medical Board comprising of experts and specialists have found the petitioner UNFIT not only on the ground of malocclusion but on account of less dental points.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on the „Manual of Medical Examination and Medical Standard for Various Entries into Army, TRG Academies and Military School‟ (hereinafter referred to as the Manual).
13. Clause 103 of the Manual prescribes General Instructions for Recruiting Medical Officer and Dental Officer and clause 103(b) reads as under: “(b) Award of dental points, A total of minimum 14 points will be required for fitness provided the following teeth are present in the upper jaw in good functional apposition to the corresponding teeth in the lower jaw:-
(i) Any 4 of the 6 anterior.
(ii) Any 6 of the 10 posterior.”
14. The Manual prescribes that a minimum of 14 points would be required for fitness. Review Medical Board has found that petitioner has only 12 dental points i.e. 2 points short than the required minimum of 14 and, as such, found the petitioner as UNFIT for recruitment.
15. Subject advertisement also requires, that every candidate, on being qualified in the interview, would have to attend the ‘Special Medical Examination Board’ for examining his or her medical fitness as per laid down standards.
16. The Manual prescribes the standards and it is the case of respondent that the same standards have been applied across the board for all the recruits not only for this examination but also in every examination that has been conducted.
17. Since the petitioner has 12 dental points which is less than the 14 required dental points as prescribed by the medical standard we find no reason to fault the rejection of the petitioner on the ground of his being unfit as per the medical standards.
18. We are further unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should examine the validity of the standards prescribed by the respondent for medical examination.
19. It is settled position of law that the Appointing Authorities are free to prescribe conditions for recruitment. It is not the province of courts to trench into and prescribe qualifications in particular when the matters are of a technical nature.[1]
20. In the instant case, subject condition which is sought to be impugned is a medical condition and medical standard prescribed by the Army for the purposes of recruitment. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of constitution of India, would not evaluate the rationale of the Armed forces behind prescribing such medical standards, particularly when same standards have been applied across the board for testing all candidates.
21. Further the standards of physical fitness required by an officer of the Armed Forces are much higher and stringent than those required for civilian employment.[2]
22. A coordinate bench of this court in Km. Priyanka (supra) held as under:
23. Further, the medical standards relied upon by the Petitioner themselves prescribe as under: “To be deemed „Medically fit‟, a candidate must be in good physical and mental health and free from any disease/syndrome/disability likely to interfere with the efficient performance of military duties in any terrain, climate, season incl. sea and air, in remote areas, in austere conditions with no medical aid. Candidates also should be free of medical conditions which require frequent visits to medical facilities and use of any aid/drugs.”
24. The Manual lays down the General Considerations and Principles of Medical Examinations as under: “General
1. The Armed Forces are one of the largest employers in the country. All Armed Forces personnel regardless of occupational specialty, unit assignment, age or gender should have a basic level of general physical fitness when inducted into service. This basic level of fitness can then be used as a springboard to train personnel for further physically demanding occupational specialties or unit assignments and deployable combat readiness.
2. Primary responsibility of the Armed Forces is to defend territorial integrity of the nation. For this purpose, Armed Forces are always prepared for war. Armed Forces also assist civil authorities in case of disasters/calamities. Therefore, Armed Forces personnel undergo rigorous physical and mental training to withstand mental and physical stress of service conditions to perform their military duties at any terrain, climate, season including sea and air, in remote areas, in austere conditions with no medical aid. To carry out such tasks, Armed Forces require candidates with robust mental and physical health. During military operations, a medically unfit individual due to disability /disease/deformity, can jeopardize the entire operation and apart from draining out precious resources can endanger lives of other members of the team.
3. The Armed Forces Medical Services are responsible and the competent auth for ensuring selection of medically fit individuals into the Armed Forces. Primary Medical Examination of Candidates, for enrolment/commissioning in the Armed Forces, is carried out to select, “Only those candidates, who can withstand rigorous mental and physical stress of military service, in all types of terrains, climatic and geographical conditions and to preclude acceptance of those, who are likely to breakdown on exposure to various stresses experienced in discharge of active service”.
4. It must be borne in mind by all Medical Officers and specialists that a candidate once selected as medically fit, if found unfit at a later stage due to a disability that could have been discovered during initial medical examination (although many diseases/disabilities may not be detected due to limited investigations) causes considerable embarrassment to authorities and avoidable financial burden to State. In case of any doubt about any disease/disability/injury/genetic disorder etc noticed during enrolment/commissioning, the benefit of doubt will be given to the State.
5. Aim of this manual/literature is to provide basic reference to Medical Officers, specialists, members and president Medical boards involved in medical examination of candidates as regards their desired medical fitness standards based on the principles of medical fitness laid down in various AOs & AIs. The disabilities describes are not exhaustive, due development of scientific knowledge and introduction of new trades/categories of entries by the Armed forces. These guidelines will be applicable to all types of entries into the Army irrespective of age and gender.”
25. The General Considerations and Principles clearly stipulate that all Armed Forces personnel regardless of occupational specialty, unit assignment, age or gender should have a basic level of general physical fitness when inducted into service and the basic level of fitness can then be used as a springboard to train personnel for further physically demanding occupational specialties or unit assignments and deployable combat readiness. Armed Forces personnel undergo rigorous physical and mental training to withstand mental and physical stress of service conditions to perform their military duties at any terrain, climate, season including sea and air, in remote areas, in austere conditions with no medical aid. To carry out such tasks, Armed Forces require candidates with robust mental and physical health. During military operations, a medically unfit individual due to disability /disease/deformity, can jeopardize the entire operation and apart from draining out precious resources can endanger lives of other members of the team. It further stipulates that in case of any doubt about any disease/disability/injury/genetic disorder etc noticed during enrolment/commissioning, the benefit of doubt will be given to the State.
26. Furthermore, the contention that lesser dental points or malocclusion would not hamper the functioning as of a doctor is not something this Court would examine particularly when the medical standards that have been prescribed are applied across the board. It is open to the Appointing Authority to prescribe standards that would be required to be met by candidates who seek appointment. It is not in dispute that the same standards have been applied across the board for all candidates.
27. This Court will not substitute its view and will certainly not examine as to whether there would be a functional difficulty or not of an individual, if appointed to the required post. This certainly is beyond the scope of the examination under Article 226.
28. Consequently, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner on that ground.
29. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that malocclusion only of a particular nature is disqualification and general malocclusion is not a ground to reject is also misplaced for the reason that petitioner has not been rejected solely on the ground malocclusion but has been rejected on the ground that he has scored less dental points i.e. 12, which is less than the required 14. Clearly, Petitioner does not satisfy the medical standard required for recruitment.
30. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MANOJ JAIN, J JULY 11, 2023