Tripura High Court
Smt. Rangeela Chakma vs The Union Of India & 4 Ors on 27 April, 2022
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 707 of 2021
Smt. Rangeela Chakma
.....Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The Union of India & 4 Ors.
......Respondent(s)
For petitioner(s) : Mr. SL Pachuau, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B Majumder, Asst. SG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
27.04.2022
Heard Mr. SL Pachuau, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Majumder, learned Asst. SG appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner, in pursuance to the notice published in the employment news/Rozgar Samachar on 21.07.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petitioner), applied for the post of Constable (General Duty).
The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST) category in the state of Mizoram and as regards his status, there is no controversy. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had successfully completed the computer based examination and thereafter, she was asked to appear for Physical Standard Test. The petitioner was found fit in the same test and thereafter, on verification of the documents, the petitioner was asked to appear for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) and for that purpose she was issued a Page 2 of 6 call letter (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME), but she was found unfit in the said medical examination for her CSR Abnormality (ribs calcification).
There is a provision for review. If someone is dissatisfied with the result of the said medical examination, the procedure has been laid down in the said notice (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) for seeking Review Medical Examination. It is provided that ordinarily there is no right of appeal against the findings of the Recruiting Medical Officer or Initial Medical Examination. If any Medical Certificate is produced by a candidate as a piece of evidence about the possibility of an 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 Certificate will not be taken into consideration unless it contains a note by the Medical Officer from Government District Hospital or above along with registration number given by MCI/ State Medical Council, to be effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate is 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 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 examination i.e. Review Medical Examination.
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Pachuau, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that such certificate, with due opinion, in Form No.3 by the Specialist Medical Officer of Government District Hospital, Aizwal had been submitted by the petitioner. The said certificate is available with the writ petition at Annexure-18. In the said certificate, it has been categorically observed that in the opinion of DME, an error of judgment has taken place and three reasons have been given to show how the error of judgment has taken place.
Based on the said certificate, the petitioner filed the appeal and on acceptance of the appeal, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Review Medical Board by issuing another call letter (Annexure-16 to the writ petition). Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Review Medical Board on 15.10.2020 and the petitioner was found medically fit for the recruitment and the certificate in that respect was issued by the Board on 16.10.2020 (Annexure-17 of the writ petition).
As the petitioner did not receive the letter of selection/offer of appointment, she sent a notice to the respondents through an advocate. Even the petitioner had filed one affidavit stating that out of mistake before her name, she did not use 'Km'. The petitioner has stated that nothing had happened in her favour after this notice and hence she had approached the Gauhati High Court at Aizawl Bench by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.74/2021 which was however, later on, withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Page 4 of 6
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this court urging that direction be issued on the respondents to select her for recruitment as the Constable (General Duty) following the process that has been undertaken, in pursuance to the notice (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
Mr. B Majumder, learned Asst. SG appearing for the respondents has stated that during the verification the name of the petitioner i.e. Rangeela Chakma mismatched with her 10th class educational certificate, wherein her name has been mentioned as Km Rangeela Chakma instead of Rangeela Chakma, as appeared in the other documents.
However, due to technical error, the same could not be uploaded at that time in SSC web utility tool. On assuming that all details are correct, the petitioner was allowed to undergo DME. During the DME the petitioner was found medically unfit due to CSR abnormality and Ribs Calcification and she was declared medically unfit for the recruitment.
However, the respondents have admitted that on the appeal of the petitioner, the Review Medical Examination (RME) was carry out and the petitioner was found fit for recruitment. But there was no 'qualified' remarks in the document verification stage and in SSC web utility tool. It was with remarks DME unfit. Hence, the petitioner was not selected.
In this regard, reference has been made by Mr. Majumder, learned Asst. SG to the provisions of the notice (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) at para 11 (mode of selection). In 11.5, it has been provided that Page 5 of 6 only those candidates, who qualified in PET/PST and was short listed for DME by the Commission and whose documents were found to be in order, will require appearing in DME, which will be conducted as per the revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination issued by ADG (Medical), (CAPF) dated 20.05.2015. Detailed Medical Examination (DME) is mandatory but of qualifying nature.
From this provision, it appears that unless the documents are found in order, no aspiring candidate will be recommended for appearing in DME. But it is undisputed that the petitioner was examined in DME and she was also issued the call letter for appearing in the DME and later on, the petitioner was again examined in the RME and the call letter was duly issued.
As such, it should be assumed that there is no objection. The ground of disqualification it is really astounding. In the 10th class educational certificate, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned with 'Km' which is the abbreviated form of 'Kumari' and it is not usually written by the candidate, but it is generated by the concerned authority who issues such certificate to denote sex.
In that certificate, the name of the petitioner is written as Km Rangeela Chakma and in all other documents the petitioner is named as Rangeela Chakma. A person, having the common prudence, will understand that Km is not part of the name, it is a signifier.
Be that as it may, the petitioner had filed an affidavit to the Recruitment Authority but according to this cause that was not at all required. Page 6 of 6
In view of this, the respondents are directed to recruit the petitioner and to put her in induction training for her substantial appointment in the post of Constable (GD) in terms of the notice at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner shall be recruited as early as possible, but by any rate, not later than 31st May, 2022.
Having directed as such, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE satabdi