Delhi High Court
Vikash Choudhary vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 November, 2020
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$~VC-S-11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th November, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 9191/2020, C.M. Appl. No.29685/2020
VIKASH CHOUDHARY ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhanu Gupta and
Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra,
Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikram Bakshi Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
%
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
ASHA MENON, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shri Vikash Choudhary, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders dated 1st February 2020 and 16th October 2020 whereby the petitioner was found medically unfit and for directions to the respondent No.1/Union of India, respondent No.2/DG CRPF and respondent No.3/Staff Selection Commission to allow the W.P. (C) 9191/2020 Page 1 of 6 petitioner to be medically examined by an Independent Board in R & R Hospital and direct his appointment if found fit.
2. The petitioner had, responded to the advertisement dated 21st July 2018 of the respondent No.3/Staff Selection Commission inviting online applications to participate in the examination for the recruitment of Constables (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR). He successfully cleared the written exam on 14th February 2019 and cleared the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). Subsequently, he was called for medical examination on 31st January 2020 and was declared medically unfit due to 'eye squint' and 'knock knee more than 5cm'. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appeal Medical Board requesting for Re-Medical Examination, as he was confident that he was not suffering from any disability. On 15th October 2020, the petitioner appeared before the Appeal Medical Board, but was again declared medically unfit the same day on the ground that he had 'knock knees more than 5 cms'. Dissatisfied with these findings, the petitioner got himself medically examined on 31 st October 2020 at V.M.M.C. & Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi where the Senior Resident, Central Institute of Orthopaedics on examination found him without any disability.
3. The ld. counsel for the petitioner has pressed that in the light of such contradictory findings of the Medical Boards of the respondents and the Doctor of Safdarjung Hospital, this was a fit W.P. (C) 9191/2020 Page 2 of 6 case where this Court should direct the respondents to get the petitioner re-examined by an Orthopaedic Specialist as it was a matter of his future. The ld counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judgements placed in the e-paperbook as Annexure P- 4 to P -9 allowing such requests for a re-medical examination.
4. We are unable to agree with these submissions. In fact over the last few months we have had occasion to deal with several similar petitions and have been of the view that the medical standards for the Armed Forces including CAPFs is much higher than the standards for civilian service. Therefore, the assessment by a Medical Board made up of doctors familiar with the conditions of service of these Forces will have greater weightage than the opinion of doctors in civil hospitals who have no idea about the challenges in field service.
5. We find that there is no challenge to the report of the Appeal Medical Board as being vitiated by improper constitution, except to claim that there was no Orthopaedic in the Appeal Medical Board. However, the existence or otherwise of 'knock knees' does not entail specialist knowledge, even as per the definition given by the petitioner in para no. 10 of his petition. It can be discernible to even a common person. We are unable to find any violation of the Rules.
6. In a recent decision of this court in W.P. (C) No. 4558/2020 titled as Sharvan Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Others, W.P. (C) 9191/2020 Page 3 of 6 decided on 27th July 2020, this Court has reiterated that the report of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board to be final decision of the Medical Board, in the following words:-
"4. We have recently in judgment dated 15th July, 2020 in W.P.(C) 3930/2020 titled Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India, in the context of medical test for recruitment in the officer cadre of Indian Air Force, Rules wherein provide for examination by Medical Board, Appeal Medical Board and Review Medical Board, held as under:-
"8. We have today again considered whether the petitioner is entitled to yet another chance and are unable to find any justification for the same. We have already in the order dated 6th July, 2020 observed that fitness for serving requisite duties in the Air Force is a matter of opinion and if in the opinion of the authorities constituted under the Rules of the Air Force the petitioner is unfit, a report of a medical practitioner of another organization which does not intend to recruit the petitioner and which will not be affected by the medical unfitness of the petitioner, cannot be the basis for interfering with the assessment by the Air Force. It cannot be lost sight of that just as in justice delivery, appeal provisions are provided to eliminate the possibility of human error, so have a sufficient number of opportunities of preferring an appeal and thereafter preferring a review have been provided in the matter of medical examination and just like the decision making before the Courts cannot be indefinite, so can the decision making with respect to medical fitness in the Air Force, cannot be indefinite. There has to be a finality in decision W.P. (C) 9191/2020 Page 4 of 6 making, as is there in the justice delivery system. It cannot be lost sight of that no mala fides are attributed with respect to any of the medical examinations or to the team of medical professionals conducting the medical examination. It is the medical practitioners of the Air Force and Defence Services, who have themselves undergone the requisite trainings and discharge the functions of the organization, who are best suited to form an opinion as to the medical fitness of the candidates to be recruited and once they have so formed their opinion, there can be no interference therewith, at the mere asking of a rejected/disgruntled candidate."
What has been held in the context of Air Force, equally applies here. Once the Rules provide for the report of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board to be final, every candidate declared medically unfit, cannot, at the mere asking, be granted another opportunity as is found to be sought in innumerable cases coming up before the courts. Medical opinion, like a legal opinion, can vary from professional to professional and once the Rules provide for finality and are found in the present case to have provided for a review, to eliminate the possibility of human error, that finality has to be accepted, unless a case for interference is made out.
7. Para 7 of the same judgment is as below:
"7. We have in judgment dated 22nd May 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 3237/2020 titled Dhiraj Milind Dhurve vs. UPSC, in the context of medical examination test in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and which includes respondents CRPF, held, that the candidates found medically unfit cannot seek a change of the W.P. (C) 9191/2020 Page 5 of 6 terms subject to which they have taken the examination and which terms uniformly apply to all candidates. It was held that the principle of 'Rules of the Game cannot be changed after the game has begun' applies, with only a few of all those found medically unfit, who approach the court, being permitted another round of medical test."
8. The petitioner has availed of all opportunities to get a second opinion during the Appeal Medical Board and there is no purpose left in getting a further medical examination conducted.
9. We do not find any merit in the present petition.
10. Dismissed.
ASHA MENON (JUDGE) RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 20, 2020 pkb* W.P. (C) 9191/2020 Page 6 of 6