Full Text
W.P.(C) 3693/2018
RAKESH . Petitioner
Through: _ Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Dr. G.L. Bhatia and Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocates.
PRADEEP KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Dr. G.L. Bhatia and Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocates.
22.11.2018
ORDER
1. These are two writ petitions which raise more or less similar issues which are sought to be disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) Nos. 3693/2018 & 4372/2018 Page I of 6 2018:DHC:9045-DB
2. Mr. Rakesh [the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3693/2018] appeared in the examination held for recruitments to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Industrial Security Force ('CISF'), Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF'), and Sahastra Seema Bal ('SSB') on 5^^ June 2011, as did Mr. Pradeep Kumar [the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 4372/2018]. Both were provisionally qualified. A letter dated 6'*^ July 2011 was issued by the Staff Selection Commission ('SSC') to each of them to appear for medical examination on 28^*^ July 2011. Both Petitioners were declared fit pursuant to appearing in said medical examination.
3. Certain writ petitions were filed in this Court thereafter as a number of candidates out of the selected candidates were rejected on the ground that they had left Column 17 on their application forms blank or had not indicated their preferences. These writ petitions were clubbed and disposed of by a common order in W.P. (C) 5663/2013 and connected matters {Deepak Kumar Singh v. Union ofIndia) dated July 2014 in terms of which the Respondents were directed to recruit such candidates who were otherwise successftil on merit.
4. Consequent to said order ofthis Court, the SSC, by a letter dated 7^*' July 2015, called upon the Petitioners to submit of documents and verification on or before 22"^^ July 2015. By aletter dated 17^^ July 2017 issued by the SSB, the Petitioners were again called for medical examination. Both Petitioners underwent medical examination on lO'*" August 2017 as a result of which bothwere declared "medically unfit".
5. As far as Mr. Rakesh was concerned, he was declared unfit on account of: W.P. (C) Nos. 3693/2018 &4372/2018 Page 2of[6]
(i) distant vision was 6/9,
(ii) vitiligo over lower lips,
(iii) crept in B/L knees.
According to Mr. Rakesh, he subsequently got himself medically examined at Civil Hospital, Jhajjar and the Medical Officer there declared him medically fit on all aforementioned grounds.
6. As far as Mr. Pradeep Kumar is concerned, he was declared unfit on account of:
(i) flat foot B/L legs,
(ii) molecular isotropic Squint,
(iii) crept in B/L knees.
According to the Mr. Pradeep Kumar, he too got himself medically examined by the Medical Officer of a hospital in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh who declared him medically fit on all aforementioned grounds.
7. Annexing the above certificates, both Petitioners sought a review medical test. The Court has been shown the Revised Guidelines, as on May 2015, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division-II) for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles. Among the guidelines for Review Medical Boards, it has been indicated that the defects for which candidate has been declared unfit "should be examined thoroughly and the findings must be got supported by proper investigation reports if applicable". It is further indicated that "in cases of rejection in review medical examination, clinical findings should be corroborated with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists/super specialists of W.P. (C) Nos. 3693/2018 &4372/2018 Page 3of[6] s Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical centres, whichever and wherever applicable". In the case of both present Petitioners, the request for Review Medical Board was accepted and each of the Petitioners was called by letter dated 20^''September 2017 for a review medical examination.
8. As far as Mr. Rakesh is concerned, on 13^^ October 2017, he was again declared unfit as a result of the review. In the review, the Petitioner's eye sight 6/6 and the crept in knees were found absent. However, the vitiligo on lower lip was still found present on account of which he was declared medically unfit.
9. As far as Mr. Pradeep Kumar is concerned, on 13"^ October 2017, it was found that the Petitioner's flat foot and crept in knees were found absent. However, he was declared medically unfiton account of divergent squint.
10. The arguments in both cases are the same, viz., that a person who initially declared to be medically fit in 2011 cannot be declared to be was medically unfit in 2017 after a second medical examination. Learned counsel for the Petitioners insists that both Petitioners be sent for further medical examination by the Army and Referral (R & R Centre) or some other independent body, particularly since, in both cases, some of the grounds onwhich the Petitioners were found unfit, were subsequently found absent.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, points out that the Review Medical Board is comprised of experts and there isno ground to W.P. (C) Nos. 3693/2018 &4372/2018 Page 4of[6] doubt their impartiality.
12. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited. Essentially, this Court is concerned about the reasonableness and fairness in the process of selection and not the ultimate result. The present petitions question the process of filling up posts by way of selection. The facts as narrated speak for themselves. It is plain that there are two levels of medical examination, While, in the first medical examination, the examiners found three grounds of medical unfitness in the case of Mr. Rakesh and four such grounds in the case of the Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the Review Medical Board found one ground of medical unfitness with respect to each of them. In the case of Mr. Rakesh, it was vitiligo over lower lip, whereas in the case of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, it was Exophoria (divergent squint).
13. The May 2015 guidelines referred to hereinabove specify, in para 6, 'General Grounds for Rejection'. Among those grounds, 'any degree of squint' and 'chronic skin disease like vitiligo, leprosy, SLE, and so on' find mention. The existence of each of these conditions has been found with respect to each of the Petitioners respectively on at least two separate occasions.
14. The Court is satisfied that the Review Medical Board acted objectively. There is no suggestion that they harboured any bias against either of these candidates. The same Review Medical Board has found the other grounds of medical unfitness in respect of each of the candidates to be absent while indicating, in each of their cases, the existence of one ground of medical unfitness. The Court is, therefore, not persuaded that in these two cases, any W.P. (C) Nos. 3693/2018 & 4372/2018 Page 5 of[5] i <0 further independent medical review is called for.
15. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J. Page 6 of[6]