Kerala High Court
Abhijith G.S vs Union Of India on 19 November, 2021
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2911 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ABHIJITH G.S
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.GIREESH BABU, KUZHIVILLA VEEDU, VELLALLOOR P.O.,
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695601.
BY ADVS.
VINAY RAMDAS
SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA
KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF
HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110003.
2 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
3 CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, BLOCK NO.1, LODHI
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
4 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695316.
5 REVIEW MEDICAL BOARD,
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695316.
BY ADV SMT.T.P.SINDHUMOL
OTHER PRESENT:
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 2
CGC TONY GEORGE THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2021, THE COURT ON 19/11/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 3
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner is an applicant to the post of Constables(G.D.) in Central Armed Police Forces, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 21/7/2018 issued by the second respondent. After the successful submission of the application, the writ petitioner was called for Physical Standard Test(PST) and thereafter for the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) on 23/8/2019. Thereafter, he was called for the next stage of Detailed Medical Examination(DME) on 21/1/2020. After the examination, he was issued with Ext.P3 memorandum stating that he was unfit for the reason of "KNOCK KNEE". Claiming that the examination was not properly conducted and that it was not even presided by a presiding officer, the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P3 along with Ext.P5 medical certificate issued by the Additional Professor of Orthopadics, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 24/1/2020, who had given an opinion that there was no clinical and radiological evidence of knock knee(genus valgum). On the strength of Ext.P5 medical certificate, his appeal was accepted and the petitioner was directed to appear for a Review Medical Examination(RME). Medical examination was held on 10/10/2020 and he was issued with Ext.P7 review medical report. It also reiterated that the petitioner was unfit on account of genus valgum.
2. The petitioner has challenged Exts.P3 and P7 certificates in this W.P.(C) contending that they are unreliable and are not medically acceptable. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to quash Exts.P3 DME and P7 RME and to declare W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 4 that the petitioner is medically fit for the post covered by Ext.P1 notification. It was also requested that the 3rd respondent may be directed to include the petitioner in the final list prepared for Ext.P1 notification.
3. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the allegations in the writ petition were denied and it was pointed out that the report of the Review Medical Board was final and cannot be challenged in any proceedings. It was pleaded that, the appellate authority had, after proper review medical examination, had declared the petitioner medically unfit on 10/10/2020. This is available on the Dossier of the petitioner. Along with the counter affidavit, the Dossier of the petitioner and the true copy of the guidelines for the recruitment medical examination of CAPF was also produced. Thereafter, along with a memo, copy of the guidelines was against produced stating it to be the revised guidelines as on May 2015.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned CGC.
5. Opposing the prayer in the writ petition, the learned CGC vehemently contended that the writ petition was palpably belated and absolutely no explanation was forthcoming from the side of the petitioner. It was submitted that the writ petitioner was issued with Ext.P10 revised medical certificate on 10/10/2020. He approached this court by filing the writ petition on 3/2/2021. The long delay of five months in approaching this court is fatal and remains unexplained also. The learned counsel invited my attention to the judgment of this court in W.P.(C) No.2902/2021 filed by another candidate, which was considered by this Court,and W.P.(C) was dismissed on the ground of delay alone.
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 5
6. In W.P.(C) No.2902/2021, a detailed medical examination conducted by the second respondent and the reports of the review medical examination were under challenge. The petitioners therein sought a direction to constitute a medical board consisting of combatised medical officers and independent medical experts. The learned Single Judge, before whom the matter came up for hearing, noted that the RME which was complained of was conducted on 10/10/2020. The writ petition was filed on 3/2/2021. The learned Judge noticed that, by the time the matter came up for admission, in several other writ petitions which have been filed till January 2021, interim orders were granted, directing the selection to go on to all posts, except to the posts to which the writ petitions had already been entertained. Thereafter, those writ petitions were heard and judgments were rendered on 7/4/2021. The court found that W.P.(C) No.2902/2021 was filed highly belatedly and by judgment dated 11/8/2021, it was dismissed on the ground of delay.
7. In the present case also, exactly similar situation has occurred. Though this writ petition was also filed on 3/2/2021, the proceedings indicate that thereafter the matter was being adjourned for one reason or other. The matter has come up for final hearing only on 26/8/2021. This has to be reckoned in the background that the process of selection was commenced with the notification in the year 2018 and by now, substantial part of the recruitment process must have been over. Any order passed at this highly belated stage can only prejudice the process of recruitment. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
8. However, in the interest of justice, this court proposes to examine the W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 6 contentions set up by petitioner on merits also. The learned counsel heavily relied on the guidelines issued for medical examination produced as Ext.P8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the guidelines for RME provides that Board should examine the candidates specifically for the deficiency for which the candidate has been declared unfit. It was mandated that the defects for which the candidate has been declared unfit has to be examined thoroughly and the findings must be supported by investigation reports, if applicable. It was further contended that, it also mandated that the clinical findings should be co-related with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists of the Government Hospitals , etc. It was also provided that, in the case of knock knee, X-Ray plates with findings should be attached. The learned counsel placed reliance on the report of the doctor produced by him as Ext.P5, to contend that in the light of the opinion of the review board which was not in conformity with Ext.P7, there was a controversy and the matter ought to be referred to a detailed examination. To substantiate it, the learned counsel referred to Ext.P8 guidelines, which provided that the review board may get opinion of the concerned specialists or super specialists of the Government Medical College and Hospital, in case of any controversy. It was not done in this case, it was contended.
9. Answering the above contentions, the respondents have contended in the counter affidavit, that during RME, the Board of Officers detailed for conducting RME had examined the candidate for the defects for which he was declared unfit during DME. The petitioner was declared unfit by RME Board due to knock knee (Genu Valgus) on 10/10/2020 as confirmed by the X-ray report. The knee angle W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 7 of the petitioner was borderline increased, approximately by 5 degree in range of that of mild variant of genu valgus. On measurement in various position, it measured IMD 7 Cms, which is more than 5 Cms. Hence the petitioner was not eligible. It was also contended that the report of the RME was not susceptible to any challenge.
10. Answering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter ought to have been referred to an expert, in the light of the guidelines, the learned CGSC contended that it arises only when there was controversy. Even though Ext.P7 indicated that, there was no indication of knock knee, the medical board consisting of three experts had reiterated the earlier findings of the medical examination. It was supported by the X Ray report and necessary examination also. Hence, there was no controversy and the matter was not liable to be referred for any further examination. Ext.R2 produced by the CGC along with the counter affidavit, which is a Dossier of the medical examination, shows that after examination by the three member board, they concluded that the petitioner was unfit. The X ray report issued by the Diagnostic Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 9/10/2020 also forms part of the record. It shows that, there was a specific finding that knee angle was borderlined increased in range of that mild variant of genu valgus. The impression obtained recorded by the consultant radiologist was that, the knee angle was borderline increased (5%) in range of that of mild variant genu valgus.
11. Having appreciated this, it is evident that, the findings arrived at by the Board was corroborated by the test findings also. The competence of the Medical W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 8 Board in this regard cannot also be doubted. They have the experience in examining the candidates, having regard to the requirement of the recruitment agencies, and the physical and mental fitness expected from an officer of police and para military forces.
12 The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decision of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in Narinder Singh v. Director General of CRPF and others ((2018) Supreme (J&K) 387 wherein it was held that in review medical examination,the candidate cannot be rejected on clinical findings only. Any decision on rejection ought to be taken with valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by corroboratory investigation reports and if needed opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt.Hospitals, etc. On the other hand ,the learned CGC specifically referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.10783/2020 wherein, after referring to a series of earlier decisions of that court, held that the court had on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Force and the Police Forces was more stringent than a civilian employment. It was held that, once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work in arduous condition. Accordingly, they have formed an opinion that the candidates does not possess medical fitness for recruitment, opinion of private or other Government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted in as much as the recruited persons are required to work for Forces and not for the private doctors or the Government hospitals and which the medical professionals are unaware of the W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 9 demands of the duties in the Forces. This decision applies to the facts of this case.
Having considered this,there is absolutely no ground for interference in Ext.P7 report of the RME. The writ petition is accordingly liable to rejected both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge dpk W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2911/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 21.07.2018 FOR CONSTABLES (G.D) IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES (CAPFS), NIA AND SSF AND RIFLEMEN (G.D) ASSAM RIFLES (AR) EXAMINATION, 2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FOR QUALIFICATION OF PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST (PST) AND THE PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST (PET) ON 23.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF DETAILED MEDIAL EXAMINATION
FORM NO.1 CONSTABLE (G.D) EXAM-2018 DATED
21.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF REVISED SCHEME FOR COMMON
RECRUITMENT OF CONSTABLES (GD) IN CENTRAL
ARMED FORCES (CAPFS) AND ASSAM RIFLES,
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA) AND
SECRETARIAT SECURITY FORCE (SSF) TO BE
CONDUCTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH A
COMPUTE BASED EXAMINATION DATED 20.05.2015.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF MEDIAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR OF ORTHOPEDICS,
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF E ADMIT CARD FOR REVIEW
MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION
REPORT DATED 10.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 THE RELEVANT PAGES GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT
MEDICAL EXAMINATION IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE
FORCES AND ASSAM RIFLES.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN NARINDER SINGH
V.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CRPF AND OTHERS BY THE
HONOURABLE JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 TRUE COPY OF GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021 11
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CAPF.
Exhibit R2 TRUE COPY OF DOSSIER OF THE PETITIONER.