Delhi High Court - Orders
Anil vs Central Industrial Security Force And ... on 19 December, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11343/2024
ANIL
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Amit Kaushik &
Mr.Himanshu Sharma, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Mukesh
Kr. Tiwari, Ms.Reba Jena
Mishra & Ms.Harshita Sharma,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
ORDER
% 19.12.2024 CM APPL. 74580/2024
1. By this application, the petitioner prays for preponement of the date of hearing.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents, the application is allowed, and the petition is taken up for hearing today itself.
3. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11343/2024
4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Review Medical Examination Board, declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment as Head This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2024 at 21:19:28 Constable (GD) against the sports quota-2023 in the CISF, on the ground that he is suffering from Brachymetatarsia left foot.
5. The impugned order itself records that before forming an opinion, the petitioner was also referred to an Orthopaedic Specialist, Dr. Varun Kumar Vijay, RH CAPF, Greater Noida, who opined that "Brachymetatarsia L. 4th Metatarsal" would not affect his functioning.
6. In spite of the said opinion, the Review Medical Board, relying upon Para IX, Sub-para viii (B, b) of the Uniform Recruitment Guidelines, opined that the deformity of the toe, which the petitioner suffers from, shall prevent the proper wearing combatised footwear or impair walking, marching, running, or jumping, thereby disqualifying him.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Medical Board could not have brushed aside the opinion of the Orthopaedic Specialist to whom the petitioner was referred, and who had opined that the deformity suffered by the petitioner would in no manner affect his functioning.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Sapna Dubey v. Central Industrial Security Force and Anr., 2024:DHC:2140-DB, submits that the Medical Board's opinion should be accepted by this Court, as this Court is not a specialist who can re-examine the said report.
9. While we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that normally this Court should give due weightage and adhere to the opinion of the Medical Experts, at the same time, in This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2024 at 21:19:28 the present case, the Review Medical Board had itself sent the petitioner for examination by an Orthopaedic Specialist. The Specialist has opined that the deformity suffered by the petitioner would, in no manner, hamper his functioning if the petitioner is appointed.
10. The Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination dated 31.05.2021, inter alia, insofar as a deformity in the foot/ankle is concerned, provides as under:-
"B. Foot and ankle.
(a) Absence of a foot or any portion thereof is disqualifying.
(b) Presence of deformities of the toes (acquired or congenital, including, but not limited to conditions such as hallux valgus, hallux varus, hallux rigidus, claw toe(s), overriding toe(s), (that prevents the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs walking, marching, running, or jumping, are disqualifying.
(c) Clubfoot (talipes) or high-arched foot (pescavus) that prevents the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs walking, marching, running, or jumping is disqualifying.
(d) Presence of flat foot (pesplanus) as mentioned before.
(e) Presence of ingrown toenails, if infected, are disqualifying."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. A reading of the above would show that for disqualifying a candidate, apart from the presence of a deformity on the toe, it must also be opined that the said deformity prevents the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs walking, marching, running, or jumping.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2024 at 21:19:28
12. In the present case, apart from reproducing the above condition, the Review Medial Board has given no reasons for not accepting the opinion of the Orthopaedic Specialist to whom the petitioner was referred by the Board itself, and who had opined that the deformity suffered by the petitioner would not affect his functionality.
13. Based on the opinion of the Orthopaedic Specialist, which was obtained by the Review Medical Examination Board in the present case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be subjected to another examination by a Medical Board, to be appointed by the Army Hospital (R&R), for obtaining an opinion on whether the deformity suffered by him would prevent the proper wearing of combatised footwear or impairs his walking, marching, running, or jumping, thereby disqualifying him from appointment in terms of the aforementioned Guidelines.
14. For the said purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board, to be appointed by the Army Hospital (R&R) on 02.01.2025 at 11:00 AM.
15. The Medical Superintendent, Army Hospital (R&R), is requested to appoint a Medical Board for the examination of the petitioner. The Medical Board must consist of an Orthopaedic Specialist.
16. The report of the Medical Board shall be produced before this Court on the next date of hearing.
17. The respondent would also be entitled to have its representative present at the time of examination of the petitioner before the Medical Board.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2024 at 21:19:28
18. List on 15th January 2025, to be shown in the 'supplementary list'.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J DECEMBER 19, 2024/rv/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/12/2024 at 21:19:28