Delhi High Court
Mr. Veer Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission & Anr. on 24 February, 2022
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Manmohan, Navin Chawla
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 11331/2021 & CM 34897/2021
MR.VEER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mohd. Hasibuddin, Adv.
versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Nitin Khanna, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent no. 2 to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Commandant pursuant to the Examination Notice No. 12/2020-CPF dated 18.08.2020 published by the respondent no. 1 for the „Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination, 2020‟ (hereinafter referred to as „Examination Notice‟).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Examination Notice, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Commandant. The petitioner, having qualified the written examination, was called Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) No.11331/2021 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:06:10 for his Detailed Medical Examination (in short, „DME‟) to SSB Gorakhpur.
3. In the DME, however, vide report dated 13.04.2021, the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit on two grounds, namely, „Defective Distant Vision Left Eye 6/24 c Glass‟ and „Varicose vein (R) Lower Limb‟. The petitioner, aggrieved by the report, was directed to appear for a Review Medical Examination (in short, „RME‟) which was to be conducted at Referral Hospital, NOIDA.
4. In the RME as well, vide report dated 22.09.2021, the petitioner was declared medically unfit for appointment on the ground of „operated varicose veins (Rt) lower limb‟.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Clause 3(n) of Appendix-V of the Examination Notice to submit that a candidate would be deemed to be medically unfit if he/she is found to have knock knees, flat foot or varicose veins. He submits that the Examination Notice is silent with respect to „operated varicose veins‟, the ground on which the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit at the stage of the RME. He submits that therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared medically unfit on the given ground, as the petitioner no longer suffers from it.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, aggrieved by the reports of the DME, got himself examined at Sadar Hospital, Munger, Bihar, and vide report dated 20.04.2021 by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Sadar Hospital, Munger, had been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) No.11331/2021 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:06:10 declared to be medically fit on the ground of both „Defective Distant Vision Left Eye 6/24 c Glass‟ and „Varicose vein (R) Lower Limb‟.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the „Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs:
Amendment Thereof‟ dated 31.05.2021 (hereinafter referred to as „2021 Guidelines‟) to submit that Clause 7(c) of the 2021 Guidelines states that for detecting vascular defects like varicose vein, a colour doppler ultrasound should be carried out. He submits that no such test was conducted in the case of the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, on the other hand, contends that Clause 6(29) of the „Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles:
Revised Guidelines as on May 2015‟ (hereinafter referred to as „2015 Guidelines‟), which are applicable to the present case, explicitly state that operated varicose veins are also a ground for being declared medically unfit. He submits that in the petition itself, the petitioner has not urged any ground about the colour doppler ultrasound not being conducted on the petitioner.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties.
10. Clause 6(29) of the 2015 Guidelines explicitly mentions that cases of varicose veins, even if operated, would be a ground for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) No.11331/2021 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:06:10 rejection as the basic defect would remain unchanged. The relevant portion of the clause is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. General Grounds for Rejection
29) Varicose veins. The diagnosis of varicose vein should be made on the basis of dilation and tortuosity of veins and after confirmation of incompetency of Sapheno-femoral junction/ Sapheno-popliteal junction or perforators by relevant clinical tests. Only prominence of veins should not be criteria for rejection. Cases of varicose veins, even if operated, are not to be accepted because basic defect remains unchanged."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. This Court in its judgment dated 15.05.2018 passed in Naveen Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) 2513 of 2018, in a case involving rejection on the ground of operated varicose veins, observed as under:
"7. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the study conducted on the subject and the side effects that new varicose veins may develop again after a surgery. This can happen, for instance, if the vein was not completely removed. Over a period of up to ten years, after two years in 30 out of 100 people who had undergone surgery, varicose veins had returned. After ten years, 70 out of 100 people had varicose veins again. xxxx
13. The ramifications/side effects with regard to the operated cases of varicose vein are that it ultimately leads to impairment of circulation of the blood and the individuals, who have their varicose veins operated, have a predisposition of developing varicose veins in other vessels. A study on the subject reveals that the patient with varicose veins have pain/heaviness of legs, inability to walk/stand for long hours, itching and leg cramps at night and they can also have dermatitis in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) No.11331/2021 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:06:10 the region, which may lead to development of ulcers. Given the above position, the petitioner may be medically fit for civilian jobs, as declared by Swastik General Surgery and Laparoscopy Hospital, Rohtak and Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jhajjar, but not for military/paramilitary posts, which entails working in extreme conditions and involves much more physical activity.
14. Thus, the decision by the Medial Board and the Review Medical Board declaring the petitioner to be unfit cannot be faulted and requires no intervention by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
12. In the present case, both, the DME and the RME, have declared the petitioner unfit for appointment on account of varicose veins, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the report of Sadar Hospital, Munger. This Court, in its judgment dated 21.12.2020 in Km. Priyanka vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10783 of 2020, has held that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for the civilian employment. It was held that it is the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties and the physical standards required to discharge the same. It was further held as under:
"8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) No.11331/2021 Page 5 of 6 Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:06:10 Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces."
13. As far as the submission of the colour doppler ultrasound not having been conducted, we find that no such submission has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition. This submission was made today only during the course arguments and is not supported by any affidavit. Therefore, the deserves to be rejected outrightly.
14. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 24, 2022/AB Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA WP(C) No.11331/2021 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:25.02.2022 18:06:10