Gujarat High Court
Damor Manishkumar Fuljibhai vs The Union Of India on 16 July, 2021
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani, Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11523 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11524 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11525 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11526 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11527 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ASARI JAYESHKUMAR KALYANBHAI
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHARKUMAR R UPADHYAY with Ms. Sneha Joshi for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PY DIVYESHVAR(2482) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
and
Page 1 of 25
Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 16/07/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1 Present group of petitions are preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, raising identical questions of facts and law and therefore, these petitions are being decided by a common judgement and order.
2 Facts in the capsulized form for the purpose of adjudication, are drawn from the Special Civil Application No. 11523 of 2020, which are as follows:
2.1 The respondent authority had issued an online advertisement for the post of Constables (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in ASSAM Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018. 2.2 There are in all 8 different categories in the advertisement like SSF- Special Security Force, CRPF-
Central Reserve Police Force, CISF- Central Industrial Security Force, BSF- Border Security Force, Assam Rifles, Page 2 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 ITBP- Indo Tibet Border Police, NIA- National Investigation Agency, and SSB.
2.3 The petitioner falls in Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, who applied for the post of CISF and later on, has given preference for the post of CRPF. On-line form for the registration was to be filled-in up to 20.08.2018. 2.4 The examination for the posts was conducted on 14.02.2019 and the petitioner cleared the same in the month of June, 2019. The petitioner appeared for the physical test conducted on 31.08.2019 and got qualified in the said test on the very day. On 10.01.2020, the petitioner was called for medical examination and he reached at the venue at around 7:30 a.m. in the morning. 2.5 After the preliminary medical examination, the candidates were served with fruits, biscuits, bananas and certain desserts. The candidates were then taken to Shalby hospital for chest x-ray, urine and blood test. Kiton bodies were found from the urine sample of the petitioner and, therefore, he was declared unfit. Thus, Page 3 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 PST/PET Test of the petitioner was held in his favour, however, his detailed medical examination reflected that he was held medically unfit.
3 While declaring him unfit by respondent No.5, it was conveyed to him that he can prefer an appeal against the findings of the medical examination and can also apply for review of the medical examination in the enclosed Form No.2 of Constable (General Duty) Exam, 2018 along with the demand draft of Rs. 25/- after obtaining necessary medical certificate from medical practitioner (Special Medical Officer) of the Government District Hospital and above as per Form N.3 Constable (GD) Exam, 2018 so as to reach the addressee with the period of 15 days from the date of medical examination, failing which the candidature for the recruitment would be cancelled without any further notice. It also made a mention that if the appeal was not signed by the candidate and if the medical fitness certificate is not signed by the doctor, appeal would be summarily Page 4 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 rejected. It was also further stated that the finger thumb impression and candidate's signature on the fitness certificate shall be attested by the concerned medical practitioner and if the same is received without attestation, the same would be rejected summarily. 3.1 It is averred by the petitioner that appeal for review of medical examination was preferred within the stipulated time period and the same came to be refused only on the ground that registration number of the doctor had not been reflected in the fitness certificate in Form No.3 by the Doctor, who certified in favour of the petitioner. 3.2 In short, it is a serious grievance of the petitioner that medical fitness of the petitioner was turned down merely because the doctor, who certified Form No.3 had not mentioned the registration number.
3.3 The petitioner, therefore, is before this Court lamenting that this kind of stand of respondents No.4 and 5 is unreasonable, arbitrary and absurd.
3.4 The prayers sought for in the petition are as follows:- Page 5 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 "9) On the grounds stated above and others that may be urged at the time of hearing of this petition, the petitioner prays that:-
A. Your lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 9/7/2020 and 11/1/20 passed by the respondent Nos.4 & 5 respectively and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is fully medically fit for the post where he applied and selected in the interest of justice.
B. During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to hold a medical examination of the petitioner before the Review Medical Board and upon examination at such Review Medical Board, the Review Medical Board may be further directed to pass necessary consequential orders taking notice of facts as recorded in the petition. C. During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to keep one post vacant of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPSs), NIA & SSF and Riflemen (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination- 2018 in the category of CRPF as per the online advertisement dated 21/7/2018 in the interest of justice.
D. Be pleased to pass an order dispensing the affidavit of the petitioner and be further pleased to pass an order dispensing the typed copies of all annexure on account of the prevailing pandemic.
E. Be pleased to grant interim and ad interim relief interim of paragraphs 9(A), (B) and (C). F. Be pleased to pass any other and further order as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."
4 On issuance of notice by this Court on 12.10.2020, respondents No.1,2,4 and 5 appeared.
Page 6 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 5 Affidavit-in-reply is filed for and on behalf of respondents Mr. J.N. Kohli, DIGP stating therein that the petitioner, since, has failed to fulfill the requisite criteria to get selected on the post, the petition is not maintainable. It is further urged that the same is needed to be dismissed in limine, as the competent authority instituted under the CAPF selection rules, which constitutes expert personnel of the department to examine the present petitioner, had declared him unfit. It is also contended that the Court may not sit in appeal over the decision given by the medical expert. Moreover, there are many disputed questions of fact, which require recording of evidence.
6 It is not disputed that the advertisement for filling up the post of 4307 males, 7646 females, totaling 54953 Constable (General Duty) for the year 2018, on all India basis had been published on 21.07.2018 through the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. On-line application had been submitted by Page 7 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 the present petitioner for the post of CISF as an ST candidate and after clearing written examination, an admit card had been issued to the successful candidate for physical standard test (PST)/physical efficiency test (PET) (PET/PST examination) of the petitioner before the recruitment board at GC, CRPF, Gandhinagar on 31.08.2019.
7 The petitioner was called on 10.01.2020 for detailed examination. He was declared medically unfit, as kiton bodies were found in his urinary test sample. 8 The decision of the Board was conveyed to the petitioner on 11.01.2020 with a direction that in case, he wants to file an appeal against the findings of medical report based on his medical examination, he was advised to apply for review of medical examination in the enclosed Form No.2 of General Duty Examination For No.18 provided by the Presiding Officer, Recruitment Board within a period of 15 days from the date of medical examination, failing which, his candidature was to be Page 8 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 treated as cancelled without any further notice. 8.1 The appeal, if was not signed by the candidate or the medical certificate was not signed by the doctor, the appeal would be summarily rejected.
9 The petitioner preferred an appeal along with fitness certificate issued by the Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, GMERS Medical College, Gandhinagar against the decision of the CAPF medical examination board.
10 As per paragraph 9E of the advertisement, it was specified that those of the medical certificates will not be taken into consideration, where it does not contain the certificate of the medical officer of the Government District Hospital or above along with registration number given by Medical Council of India (MCI)/ State Medical Council to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate's candidature has already been rejected and the candidate has been declared unfit for the service by the Recruiting Page 9 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 Medical Officer of CAPF Medical Board. Appeal. The certificate submitted by the candidate was rejected due to non-availability of the registration of the medical expert in the fitness certificate (Form No.3). 11 Aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority for the rejection of the candidature for the post of CT/GD, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.
12 It has been emphasized that paragraph No.9E of the advertisement is amply clear that the medical certificate will not be taken into consideration, unless it contains a note by the Medical Officer from the Government District Officer or above, with a registration number given by MCI/State Medical Council and this aspect was in the knowledge of candidates. It is, therefore, urged that as per paragraph No.9E of the advertisement, such medical certificate, which does not contain registration number of the MIC or State Medical Council, cannot be taken into consideration.
Page 10 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 13 Affidavit-in-rejoinder is filed by the petitioner reiterating what had been contended in the memo of petition and again, it has been emphasized that on the ground of non- mentioning of registration number by the doctor, who issued the medical certificate, declaring the petitioner as a fit person, appeal has been dismissed and that challenge is made presently.
14 It is the say of the petitioner that paragraph No.9E of the advertisement shall need to be read fully and not in piecemeal where the mentioning of the registration number in medical certificate is not mandatory and the same has no connection with the fitness of a person. Again, it is not so sacrosanct that it can decide the fate and future of the candidate.
15 It is further the say of the petitioner that Form No.2 sent by the appellate authority, if is looked into, it does not describe the mentioning of registration number of the concerned medical officer. Had it been mandatory, the respondent authority would have specifically mentioned Page 11 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 the same. Thus, this non-mentioning of the registration number of the medical officer should not make any difference as the same is not mandatory nor relevant with the medical fitness. Once medical officer, after having a complete knowledge of declaring the petitioner unfit by the concerned authority, has chosen to declare him fit and issued the certificate to that effect, sheer non- mentioning cannot seal the destiny of the petitioner. There has been due compliance of clause 9E and mentioning of registration number not being mandatory, that itself cannot be a ground to reject the candidate of the petitioner.
16 This Court since had noticed that the Department of Medicine, GMERS Medical College, Himmatnagar had directed the details to be furnished of the Medical Officer vide its order dated 08.02.2021, on 09.02.2021, the team of expert doctors were requested to remain present through the video conferencing on the next adjourned date, as in three of the matters being Special Civil Page 12 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 Application No. 11523 of 2020, Special Civil Application No. 11526 of 2020 and 11527 of 2020, medical certificates had been issued by Dr.Falguni Chavda, Professor, Department of Medicine, GMERS Medical Hospital, Himmatnagar, whereas in Special Civil Application No. 11524 of 2020, the Assistant Professor (Orthopedics), GMERS, Vadnagar issued the certificate, whereas, GMERS Medial College, Gandhinagar came into picture because of the certificate issued by Dr. H. A. Vyas, Professor(Head of Ophthalmology) in Special Civil Application No. 11525 of 2020.
17 Learned Assistant Government Pleader coordinated with the concerned doctors because of the order passed by this Court and requested the doctors to remain present through the video conferencing to let this Court know the procedure of MCI as the reason for non accepting the certificates of some of the candidates was only because the registration number of the concerned doctor had not been mentioned in the certificate issued. Page 13 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 18 Some of the communications and details furnished would find place in the body of the discussion.
19 Both the sides have been heard. Learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi appears with Mr. Tushar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioners, who have argued fervently along the line of the petition.
20 Respondent No.2 has been represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Parth Diyveshwar, who represents respondents No.2 and 4, who also emphasized the requirement of paragraph No.9E of the advertisement making it mandatory for the medical practitioner to reflect the registration number and in absence thereof, no entertainment of appeal is permissible.
21 Having extensively heard both the sides and also having considered the material on record, the short question that arises for the Court's consideration is as to whether non- reflection of the registration number of the doctor in the medical certificate produced for the purpose of preferring Page 14 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 the appeal against the medical fitness of Constable (GD) Examination, 2018 would render such certificate unsustainable. As could be noticed from Form No.2 GD Examination, 2018, appeal came to be preferred against the medical unfitness. The petitioner urged that he was medically examined on 10.01.2020. As at CAPF, Gandhinagar, for the recruitment of Constable (GD) Examination where he has been declared medically unfit, Dr.Falguni Chavda, Specialist has found the petitioner medically fit, and, therefore, he has made a request for review of medical examination before the Medical Board of CAPF for the post of CT/CD, 2018 in CAPF Form No.3 of the Constable (GD) Examination. Medical certificate issued by the very doctor indicates that person is medically fit for the said post.
22 It is certified that the petitioner was examined at GMERS Hospital, Himmatnagar on 21.01.2020. She is an Assistant Professor of Department of Medicine, GMERS Medical College.
Page 15 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 23 It would be worthwhile to refer to the advertisement where paragraph No.9 speaks of scheme of examination. It is a computer based examination, details of which has been given. Paragraph No.4 speaks of the medical examination to specify that candidates will be short listed for the detailed medical examination (DME) from the pool of candidates, who qualified for PET/PST. Various documents are to be verified at the time of detailed medical examination, which are as follows.
"IV.Medical Examination:
Candidates will be shortlisted for Detailed Medical Examination (DME) from the pool of candidates who qualify PET/PST. At the time of DME, following documents will be verified:
(i) Matriculation/Secondary Examination Certificate to prove age, name and educational qualification.
(ii) Domicile Certificate/ Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) issued by the competent authority.
(iii) Certificate from serving defence personnel in the format prescribed at Annexure-IV of the notice.
(iv) Undertaking in the format
prescribed in Annexure-V from Ex-
Servicemen candidates regarding
completion of engagement in Armed
Forces.
(v) Caste Certificate in the format
Page 16 of 25
Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021
C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021
prescribed at Annexure-VI and VII of the notice from the candidates seeking reservation/age relaxation.
(vi) Certificate from candidates who wish to a avil relaxation in height/chest measurement as prescribed in Annexure- VIII of the notice.
(vii) Certificate from District Collector/ District Magistrate in respect of dependent applicants of riot victims as mentioned in category 04/05/06 under Para-4(B) of the Notice.
(viii) Nativity/ Identity Certificate by West Pakistani Refugee in the format prescribed at Annexure-XIV of the notice."
24 General medical guidelines under 9B says that the purpose of medical standard is to ensure that medically fit candidates are accepted into CAPFs. They are medically examined in terms of guidelines for recruitment, medical examination in CAPF and AR issued by MHA/UO No./A- VI/1/2004/ Recruitment/SSB dated 20.05.2015 and subsequently amended from time to time. General grounds for rejection at 9C gives details of all the diseases, which would disqualify a person from being selected. 9B says that candidate must be in good oral and physical health for duties in all places including in high Page 17 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 altitude and should be ready to serve in border areas with extremely difficult conditions. What is vital is paragraph No.9E, which speaks of review of medical examination . 25 Apt would it be to refer to this part in particular as under:
"E. Review medical examination (RME):
Ordinarily there is no right of appeal against the findings of the Recruiting Medical Officer or Initial Medical Examination. If any Medical error of judgment in the decision of Initial Medical Board/ Recruiting Medical Officer, who had examined him/her in the first instance i.e. DME, an appeal can be accepted. Such Medical Officer from Government District Hospital or above along with registration no. given by MCI/State Medical Council, to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate has already been rejected and declared unfit for service by CAPF Medical Board, or the recruiting medical officer. If the appeal of a candidate is accepted by the CAPF Appellate Authority, his/her Review Medical Examination will be conducted by CAPF RME Board. The decision of the CAPF's Review Medical Boards will be final. No appeal will be entertained against the finding of the second medical i.e. Review Medical Examination."
26 As is apparent, this amply clarifies that there is right of appeal against the findings of Recruiting Medical Officer or Initial Medical Examination. However, in the event of Page 18 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 any error of judgment in the decision of Recruiting Medical Officer, at the time of detailed medical examination, an appeal can be accepted. What is mandatory is a medical certificate and note of the medical officer from the Government District Hospital along with the registration number of MCI/State Medical Council to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the effect that the candidate has been already rejected and declared unfit for service by CAPF Medical Board or Recruiting Medical Officer.
27 If the appeal of the candidate is accepted by CAPF, the appellate authority, the same would go for the review of medical examination, it would be conducted by CAPF RME Board and the decision of CAPF Review Board would be final. No appeal against the findings of second medical examination is permissible.
28 It is quite clear from the said para that if the appeal is preferred there has to to be medical certificate of the Government District Hospital or above with a registration Page 19 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 number of MCI or State Medical Council or a note of Medical Officer who should be aware as to in whose favour it is issuing a certificate with the knowledge that the candidate has been declared unfit by CAPF Medical Board or the Recruiting Medical Officer. Such certificate needs to be issued by the Medical Officer and, thus, there is an enhanced liability on the Medical Officer from the Government District Hospital. What has been contended by the respondent in the affidavit-in-reply is that the medical certificate has not been considered because the registration number given by the MCI/State Medical Council was a must to be mentioned. It is reiteratively emphasized that it is the only reason for rejecting the certificate. Admittedly, there is a note by the Medical Officer from the Government District Hospital and in the instant case of GMERS, the Doctor, who had appeared through the video conferencing have specified that for being recruited in the GMERS as an expert or the faculty, registration of the MCI is a must. It is also in the Page 20 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 knowledge of the respondent authority that all the certificates in each matter are by senior doctors of the Government Medical Hospital and without a registration under the MCI, no doctor would be accepted by the GMERS. Mr. H.A. Vyas, Professor and Head of the Department of Ophthalmology in his oral communication to this Court through the video conferencing has urged that it is a matter of common knowledge that the registration of Medical Council of India is a must. He further has urged that it is also not difficult for any one to find out the registration number of Doctor of MCI and the respondent Union of India can easily call for those details from the MCI, if it chooses to inquire into the matter. There appears to be non-mentioning of the registration number of the doctor concerned. However, this omission cannot be treated as a sacrosanct that the very candidature of the petitioner should be rejected solely on that ground when otherwise the entire certificate is found in accordance with the requirement specified at Page 21 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 paragraph No.9E of the advertisement. Not only the doctor was aware all along, but has also while issuing the certificate of fitness of the candidate, has put a note of her being aware of the candidate. The petitioner having not qualified in DME, resulting into the candidate approaching the doctor of District Medical Hospital. All other required criterion have been fulfilled, except of mentioning of the number of registration. According to the doctor, the registration number has been inadvertently missed out. We also called for the details of registration of all the doctors, who have issued certificate and it is also not being disputed by Mr. Divyeshwar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel that these doctors, who are the employees of GMERS Medical College, Himmatnagar already have their registration with the MCI.
29 Clinging to the technicalities, the respondent authority has chosen to reject the appeal in limine without bothering to do substantial justice. This, in our opinion, Page 22 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 is an unsustainable action. Mere omission of the number of registration in the certificate by the doctor could not have been magnified to such an extent that its non- mentioning or omission should lead to defeat of substantive right of a candidate, which has all along cleared all the action of examination including PET/PST. The technicalities can never mar the substantive right of the parties, if there is a specific mention and reference of the reflection of the registration of the certificate of medical practitioner, who has issued the certificate, the details of which are otherwise available to the Union of India with a little effort and when none of the certificates has been found bogus, concocted or issued by any unauthorised person, this omission on the part of the doctor of reference of registration number on the certificate, must not be given unnecessary amplification and, therefore, action on the part of the respondent authorities would warrant interference. This could have been asked for from the candidates rather than rejecting outrightly on such hollow basis.
30 The respondent Authority ought to have regarded that it is quite difficult and strenuous in a country which has the maximum population of the youth in the world for the young people to have an opportunity to serve the country and to get a government job. Again, it is further difficult Page 23 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 for them to clear the written examination and get qualified for advanced tests. The medical test which had shown the kiton bodies on account of some error which later, the medical experts of the field could diagnose to be incorrect result and issued the fresh certificate. There is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the certificates and it is only the technical aspect of non- mention of the registration number of the doctors which has sealed the fate of the candidates and that too, without affording opportunity to the petitioners to explain, therefore, this Court is required to intervene in all the petitions. Nothing prevented the authority to obtain that basic detail of registration from the MCI or the State of Gujarat, if it wanted to counter check in the event of any question mark.
31 Resultantly, all the petitions are allowed. Action on the part of the respondent authorities of rejection of the certificates of medical experts and thereby dismissing the appeals by the CAPF, the appellate authority, is to be construed as unacceptable, unwarranted and unpalatable and is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Let the very certificate be taken into consideration and the review of the medical examination, if inevitable and a must, be conducted by the CAPF RME Board within two weeks. All concerned shall treat the petitioner candidate medically Page 24 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021 C/SCA/11523/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2021 fit, if there are no other grounds to deny the recruitment to the candidate. Let the process of issuance of letter of appointment be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgement, on completion of the due procedures.
32 All petitions stand Allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) At this stage, after the pronouncement, Mr. Parth Divyeshvar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, has made a request for stay of judgment and order of this Court, to which request, the Bench has not acceded to, for having already given the time of eight weeks for completing the process.
(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) SUDHIR Page 25 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 06:02:13 IST 2021