Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367
CWP-8272-2020 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:161367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111 CWP-8272-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 15.12.2023
Sunil ......... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Surender Pal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Arvind Moudgil, Sr.Panel Counsel and
Ms. Deepanshu Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of report dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-3) and 24.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) whereby he has been declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Telecom) in ITBP.
2. The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement applied for the post of Constable (Telecom). The petitioner was issued an admit card and thereafter, he appeared in the written test as well as Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST). The petitioner was subjected to medical examination wherein vide report dated 09.07.2019, he was declared unfit due to varicose veins at lower limb. The petitioner got himself operated from the Government Hospital and thereafter requested for Review Medical Board. The petitioner was subjected to re-examination 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2023 06:41:46 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367 CWP-8272-2020 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:161367 by Review Medical Board which vide report dated 24.09.2019 which declared him unfit on the same ground i.e. varicose veins.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already got himself operated, thus, respondent has wrongly rejected candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner deserves to be examined by Medical Board constituted by PGI, Chandigarh. In support of his contention, he relies upon order dated 19.05.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.654 of 2015 titled as "Raju vs. Union of India and others" and order dated 03.12.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.15706 of 2012 titled as "Anoop Kumar vs. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force and others".
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was twice subjected to medical examination and same deficiency was found. The respondents are bound by its instructions and as per instructions, in case of varicose veins, even if operated, a candidate cannot be accepted because basic defect remains unchanged.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of record, it comes out that the petitioner was subjected to Detailed Medical Examination as well as Review Medical Examination. In both the medical examinations, the petitioner was declared unfit on account of varicose veins. The respondent has issued office memorandum dated 20.05.2015 wherein medical standards have been prescribed. Paragraph 6 of the office memorandum specifically deals with general grounds for rejection. Clause 29 of the paragraph 6 of memorandum deals with varicose veins which provides that a person suffering from 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2023 06:41:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367 CWP-8272-2020 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:161367 problem of varicose veins despite operation would not be considered for the post. Paragraph 6 (29) of the memorandum reads as :
"Varicose veins. The diagnosis of varicose vein should be made on the basis of dilatation and tortuosity of veins and after confirmation of incompetency of Sapheno- femoral junction/Sapheno-popliteal junction or perforators by relevant clinical tests. Only prominence of veins should not be criteria for rejection. Cases of Varicose veins, even if operated, are not to be accepted because basic defect remains unchanged."
7. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.02.2020 passed in LPA No. 1017 of 2017 titled as "Roop Singh vs. Union of India and others" has held that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the medical authorities which have rejected candidature of the applicant on two occasions. The relevant extracts of the order dated 11.02.2020 read as :
"After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the Considered opinion that the present Letters Patent deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, the appellant applied for the post in question and in the said recruitment process, he was declared qualified in physical efficiency test i.e. PET/PST at TPT Bn, Behlana Camp, ITBP, Chandigarh as also qualified written examination by scoring 43 marks out of 50 marks. Thereafter, he was called for practical (Skill) Test and he was declared qualified having scored 36 marks out of 50 marks. The next and last stage for selection was documentation and Detailed Medical Examination for which the petitioner appeared in the event at Composite Hospital, ITBP, Chandigarh on 19.07.2016 and was declared "UNFIT" on account of 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2023 06:41:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367 CWP-8272-2020 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:161367 the reasons mentioned above. Undisputedly, it was a case of appointment to the post of constable (Driver) in ITBP wherein the fittest and most suitable people should be selected from the long queue of applicants fighting to win a berth in the para-military forces. The highest standards of physical standards are expected due to the arduous nature of duties and the ITBP's Medical Authorities are the best judge of its own needs as to who should be recruited to guard our frontiers. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the Medical authorities which have rejected the candidature of the appellant on two occasions as discussed earlier. There is no reason to differ from the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge."
8. A Division Bench of this Court while adverting with similar issue in LPA No.871 of 2022 (O&M) titled as 'Sumit Vs. Union of India' decided on 24.04.2023 has held that once the medical experts have examined and reexamined the appellant, this Court is not required to sit over the same and adjudicate upon the correctness of the opinion (s) expressed by the Medical Experts especially when this Court does not have expertise to decide as to whether the opinion (s) of the expert are right or wrong. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality or infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has been examined twice firstly by the Recruitment Medical Board and thereafter by the Appeal Medical Board which has also obtained opinion from the Command Hospital, Eastern Command, Kolkata and thereafter taken a decision in 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2023 06:41:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367 CWP-8272-2020 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:161367 the matter. All medical experts have found the blood pressure and other parameters not to be in consonance with those prescribed.
We are also in agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that once the medical experts have examined and reexamined the appellant's case thoroughly, this Court is not required to sit over the same and adjudicate upon the correctness of the opinion(s) expressed by the Medical Experts especially when this Court does not have the expertise to decide as to whether the opinion(s) of the Medical Experts are right or wrong. The process of medical examination cannot be converted into an endless process and therefore, inality to the opinion of the Appellate Medical Board has rightly been prescribed. As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 635 of 2018 is concerned, it is evident that the said appeal was decided on the conjoint consensus statement made by the parties and therefore, it was an order passed on the basis of the consent given by the parties and does not form any binding precedent. In that case as the matter had been allowed by the learned Single Judge taking into account the medical reports of an hospital, which was not part of the medical set up of the respondents, and inspite of the negative reports being given by the Recruitment Medical Board as well as the Appeal Medical Board and therefore, the Union of India had made a statement that they will get further examination done from the Army Hospital (Research & Referral) New Delhi, a defence hospital and not a private one, to which the appellant therein had agreed and on the basis of the statements made by the parties with consent, the appeal was disposed of. In 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2023 06:41:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367 CWP-8272-2020 (O&M) -6- 2023:PHHC:161367 such circumstances, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the order passed in LPA No. 635 of 2018 is misconceived. In the instant case, there is concurrent opinion given by the Medical Experts of the Recruitment Medical Board as well as the Appeal Medical Board that the appellant is unfit for appointment in Indian Air Force."
9. In the case in hand, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination on two different occasions. The medical experts of the respondent have formed an opinion that the petitioner is not fit for post on account of varicose veins. In view of afore-cited judgments, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of medical authorities.
10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
15.12.2023 JUDGE
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161367
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 16-12-2023 06:41:47 :::