Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Meel vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 January, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar, J.R.Midha
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.16/2012
% Date of Decision: 09.01.2012
Sunil Kumar Meel .... Petitioner
Through Mr.D.S.Kauntae, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate along
with Lieutenant Vikram Srivastava
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has sought directions to the respondents, Union of India and the Director General of Medical Services (Navy), Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence to conduct the appeal/review medical board of the petitioner and to furnish the report of his medical fitness, restricting itself to declare and decide only the medical fitness of the petitioner with respect to the disability indicated in the letter dated 30th January, 2011.
2. The petitioner contended that he had passed the Senior Secondary School Examination from the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan with first Division on 12th June, 2007. Thereafter the petitioner had applied for enrollment in the Indian navy. On 30th WP(C) No.16/2012 Page 1 of 5 September, 2010, the petitioner had received a call up letter-cum-admit card to appear before the Recruitment Division at INS, Chilka, PO- Khurda, Orissa for the test which was to take place at Jodhpur (Rajasthan) on 5th October, 2010. The petitioner was also directed to report to the Military Hospital (Medical Board Office) on 31st October, 2010.
3. According to the petitioner, the final select list was to be declared on 30th December, 2010. The petitioner has, however, been declared medically unfit in terms of communication dated 30th January, 2011 sent by the Recruiting Officer citing the reasons that the petitioner is suffering from "Urine Sugar". It was also communicated to the petitioner that even during the enrollment for the medical examination by the enrollment medical officer as well as the classified specialist, the petitioner was declared unfit on account of having "Urine Sugar".
4. The petitioner asserted that it was never communicated to him at the initial stage about his medical unfitness on account of him suffering from the said disease by any of the recruiting authorities. Dissatisfied with the result of his medical examination declaring him unfit, the petitioner sent a representation dated 23rd May, 2011 and sought the certified copies of the entire medical examination record. WP(C) No.16/2012 Page 2 of 5
5. The petitioner contended that he had filed another application dated 6th August, 2011 seeking that an appeal/review medical board be conducted at the Army Hospital R&R so as to obtain a final fitness certificate from the competent service hospital/medical institute, but no response for the same was received.
6. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition contending that he is entitled to be re-examined by an appeal/review medical board and since there is no bar in law to constitute the appeal/review medical board, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to constitute an appeal/review medical board in order to re-examine him regarding the disability cited by the authorities in the letter dated 30th January, 2011.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate, who appears on advance notice has contended that if a candidate is declared permanently unfit (QAP) then he has to get himself treated/cured/checked for the disability indicated in the certificate and thereafter such a candidate can report to the Military Hospital (Medical Board Office) with a copy of the review certificate and two copies of the MOR. However, if the candidate remains medically unfit, no further action is contemplated, since the candidate remains ineligible for the selection. It is also categorically stipulated in the WP(C) No.16/2012 Page 3 of 5 instructions to the candidate that the medical opinion other than the designated service hospital is also not acceptable.
8. This is not disputed that the petitioner was declared medically unfit for enrollment in the Navy during the enrollment medical examination on account of having „Urine Sugar‟. Thereafter, the petitioner has not obtained any medical opinion stating the contrary nor has he got himself treated to indicate that the petitioner is medically fit, from any of the designated service hospitals. In the absence of any other opinion from a designated service hospital regarding the medical fitness of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that there should be an appeal/review medical board examination of the petitioner at the Army Hospital R&R.
9. This cannot be disputed that the medical board consists of experts and that their opinion is to be given due weightage and value and that such opinion of the medical board is to be given primacy unless a different opinion is available on record. Even when a different medical opinion is available, the Court should be slow in interfering with the same and substituting its own opinion with the opinion of the medical board. However, in certain circumstances, the respondents can be directed to constitute an appeal/review medical board and to re- examine a candidate.
WP(C) No.16/2012 Page 4 of 5
10. This is not disputed that no contrary opinion has been obtained by the petitioner from any of the designated hospitals, nor has he got himself treated/cured for the disability cited by the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any regulation or any instruction to the candidate, indicating that even without getting treated/cured or obtaining the medical report showing fitness of the candidate from a designated service hospital, such a candidate is entitled for an appeal/review medical board in a routine manner.
11. In the totality of the facts and circumstances as disclosed in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for constituting an appeal/review medical board. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed by him and the writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R.MIDHA, J.
January 09, 2012 vk WP(C) No.16/2012 Page 5 of 5