Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeetendra Ahirwar vs Union Of India on 11 August, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 11 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17540 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
JEETENDRA AHIRWAR S/O LATE BILLI AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED,
R/O VILLAGE KHAJWA, POST KHAJWA, CHHATARPUR,
DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SACHIN PANDEY- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. DIRECTORATE GENERAL, CRPF (RECRUITMENT
BRANCH) EAST BLOCK- 07, LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01, R
K PURAM, NEW DELHI 110066 (DELHI)
3. DIG (RECRUITMENT) CRPF GWALIOR, GROUP
CENTRE, CRPF, A.B. ROAD, GWALIOR-474001
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RME CT/GD RECTT-2019 REVIEW MEDICAL
BOARD, ITBP SHIVPURI, TELECOM BN, ITBPF, P.O.
SHIVPURI, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEVESH BHOJNE- ADVOCATE FOR UNION OF INDIA)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed 2 against the Form No. 4 of Constable GD Exam- 2018, Review Medical Examination Report, dated 08.10.2020 by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the the ground of surgical scar 11 cms with keloid was present over hexasurface of left forearm.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that as per General Medical Guidelines (Clause-9), tattoo in certain part of body were allowed. The petitioner was having a tattoo on his left forearm and ultimately he got it removed after undergoing surgical operation.
3. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of presence of surgical scar 11 cms with keloid over hexasurface of left forearm, but the surgery was conducted about 8 months prior to the medical examination.
4. By referring to prescription dated 23.10.2020 issued by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur and prescription dated 21.10.2020 issued by Dr. Sunil Chourasiya, Chhatarpur, it is submitted that surgery was done prior to 8 months of medical examination, therefore, the same should have been ignored as per Clause-10 of General Medical Guidelines.
5. Per Contra, petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State.
6. As per Annexure-P/7, Review Medical Examination Report is dated 08.10.2020 and on that date a surgical scar 11 cms with keloid was found present over hexasurface of left forearm. Petitioner is seeking quashment of the said Review Medical Examination Report on the basis of two documents i.e. OPD prescription dated 23.10.2010 issued by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur and prescription dated 21.10.2020 issued by Dr. Sunil Chourasiya, Chhatarpur. In both the prescriptions the history disclosed by the petitioner was mentioned and the petitioner had disclosed to the doctor that he had undergone a surgery about 8 months back. However, no documents of 3 surgery have been filed. Thus, it is clear that OPD prescription dated 23.10.2020 issued by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur and prescription dated 21.10.2020 issued by Dr. Sunil Chourasiya, Chhatarpur are not only subsequent to the date of holding of Review Medical Examination but the same are based on an information given by petitioner.
7. Once again it is clarified that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he had undergone any surgery in the month of February, 2020.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that OPD prescription dated 23.10.2020 issued by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur and prescription dated 21.10.2020 issued by Dr. Sunil Chourasiya, Chhatarpur cannot be made basis for quashment of the Review Medical Examination Report dated 08.10.2020. As per Clause-10, the scar should have been atleast 6 months old, but the petitioner has failed to prove the same.
9. As no perversity could be pointed out by counsel for petitioner, accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.08.11 19:30:05 +05'30'