Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Praneet Singh vs Staff Selection Commission on 7 August, 2024
1
Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 3704/2018
Order Reserved on : 30.07.2024
Order Pronounced on : 07.08.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Praneet Singh, Age - 23 years, Group - C
S/o Sewa Singh,
R/o H. No. - 368, Sector - A-5
Police Colony, Narela, Delhi - 40
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi Dua)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No-12,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road New Delhi.
2. The Inspector General (Pers.)
Directorate General, SSB,
East Block-V, R.K. Puram,
Sector - I, New Delhi - 110066
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
4. The Director General,
C.R.P.F.
Block No - 1, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. S.N. Verma with Ms. Rinky Negi)
2
Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
―(1) To quash and set-aside the report dated 12.04.2018 whereby the applicant has been declared medically unfit on the ground of 'III toe overlapping over II toe Lt. foot & report dated 9.8.2018 whereby the applicant has declared medically ‗Unfit' by the Review Medical Board on the ground 'Board found him with congenital anomaly involving 2nd and 3rd toe of left foot and to further direct the respondent that case of applicant be referred to another independent medical board or re- constituting of medical board in respect of III toe overlapping over II toe Lt. foot' and if applicant found 'fit' then to appoint the applicant to the post as per merit obtained in present selection process consequential benefit with all including seniority, promotion and pay & allowances.
Or/and
(ii) Pass any other order(s), which this Hon'ble High Court may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case‖
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant states that medical examination of candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector (Direct Entry) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)/Delhi Police and Asstt. Sub Inspector (Direct) in CISF-2017- Review Medical Examination of unfit candidates was conducted on 12.04.2018 (Annexure A-1), wherein the applicant was found „unfit‟ due to "III toe overlapping over II toe Lt. foot". He also draws our attention to Annexure A-2 whereby Review Medical Examination was conducted on 09.08.2018, wherein his applicant was found unfit by the Review Medical Board on the ground „Board found him with congenital anomaly involving 2nd and 3rd toe of left foot‟.
3Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018
However, to the contrary, he draws our attention to Medical Fitness Certificate dated 20.04.2018 as annexed in Annexure A-3, and submits that there is no evidence or mention as to whether such an overlapping of toe would affect the functionality of the applicant in performance of duties of the respondents and the applicant was found fit. In absence of such finding, the case of the applicant cannot be rejected outrightly. The said Certificate has been issued by the AIIMS Hospital by an orthopedic surgeon. The operative portion of Medical Fitness Certificate reads as under:-
―xxx xxx xxx In my opinion, this is an error of judgement due to the following reasons:-
Inspite of the above mentioned congenital deformity; he is fit to perform all ADL including related to any of his job profile.
After due examination, I declare him/her medically fit for the said post.‖ He would submit that Review Medical Board has been done in absence of any orthopedic surgeon and thus, cannot reject the claim of applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Ms. Veerta vs. GNCTD & Ors. in OA No. 1829/2024 dated 03.06.2024, which has identical facts and circumstances as that of the present case. He would further contend that the applicant is selected for the Delhi Police and is governed by specific Recruitment Rules of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) and 4 Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018 guidelines issued by MHA does not apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case and there were no guidelines in Delhi Police Rules and Regulations qua the disability/deformity.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the applicant is champion and he has obtained high merits qua his physical capabilities which are reflected from certificates that he is actively involved in the volleyball at the University Level.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to preliminary objections raised in counter affidavit and the same reads as under:-
"2. That after completion of written examination PST/PET the applicant appeared for DME at RH ITBP Greater Noida (UP) on 12.04.2018. According to medical documents available, the applicant was declared 'Unfit' in DME due to "III toe overlapping over II toe Lt. foot".
3. That, there is a provision that if a candidate is declared medically unfit during DME, he can be re-examined by the Review Medical Board.
4. That the applicant preferred appeal for RME. His appeal was accepted and he was permitted to appear before the RME Board at RH ITBP Greater Noida (UP) on 09.08.2018.
5. That, as per Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFS) and Assam Rifles, 2015 (Annexure-R-1), when candidates declared unfit during Detailed medical examination(DME) will have an opportunity to undergo Review Medical Examination (RME).
6. That, the RME Board consisting of 03 Medical Officers re- examined the applicant and found him suffering from congenital anomaly involving 3rd toe overlapping over 2nd toe of Lt. Foot. Hence, the applicant was declared "Unfit" by the RME Board."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws our attention to Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015, wherein revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination 5 Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018 for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in CAPFs & AR along with booklet of 90 pages has been issued by the MHA. The Serial Nos. 19 and 20 of 'General grounds for rejection' read as under:-
"19) Chronic skin disease like vitiligo, Leprosy, SLE, Eczema, Chronic extensive Fungal dermatitis.
20) Any congenital abnormality, so as to impede efficient discharge of training/duties."
7. Having heard the counsels for respective parties and perused the records.
8. ANALYSIS:
8.1 In above factual matrix of the case, we observe that issue of re-medical examination came up for consideration before this Tribunal in a batch of cases pertaining to recruitment process in Delhi Police in OA No.823/2024 & batch titled Salman vs. SSC & Anr. & batch. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid order are re-
produced as under :-
―15.1 The procedure to be followed for recruitment to new appointments by laying the prescribed standards have to be in consonance with FR 10 read with Supplementary Rules 3, 4 and 4-A and Rules position thereto as the user department i.e Delhi Police falls within the administrative control and overall supervision of Ministry of Home affairs, Union of India.
15.2 PART II :CHAPTER III of Fundamental Rules prescribe the GENERAL CONDITION OF SERVICE:
F.R. 10 - Except as provided by this rule, no person may be appointed in India to a post in Government service without a medical certificate of health. The Central Government may make rules prescribing the form in which medical certificates should be prepared, and the particular medical or other officers by whom they should be signed. It may, in individual cases, dispense with the production of a certificate, and may by general orders exempt any specified class of Government servants from the operation of this rule. [ For rules made under the Fundamental Rule 10, Ref Supplementary Rules 3, 4 and 4- A] 6 Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018 15.3 CATEGORIES FOR REPORTING THE FINDINGS BI' MEDICAL AUTHORITIES .The findings of the examining medical authority shall fit; recorded under one of the following three categories only :--
(1 ) Fit (2) Unfit (3) Temporarily unfit.
15.4 RULES UNDER F.R. 10 & GOVT. OF INDIA ORDERS, prescribe that A medical certificate of fitness for Government service shall be in the following form :-
`°I hereby certify that I have examined A.B.Candidate for employment in the _____________________Department, and cannot discover that do not consider wise), constitutional weakness or bodily infirmity exceptthis a disqualification for employment in the office of _______________.‖ 15.5 In the case of a female candidate appointed to a non-
gazetted post (i) in Delhi the medical certificate shall be signed by an Assistant Surgeon Grade I (Woman) under the Contributory Health Service Scheme; and (ii) in any other place by a registered female medical practitioner possessing a medical qualification in- cluded in one of the schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) (Indian Medical Central Act, 1970 and Homoeopathy Central Coun-cil Act, 1973).
15.6 In cases where the :rules for recruitment to new appointments -prescribe a fresh medical examination in respect of all candidates, all directly recruited/selected candidates, irrespective of whether they arc already in permanent or quasi-perma- nent Government service in the same or in other departments or are fresh appointees, should undergo a medical examination by the prescribed standard and by the prescribed medical authority, provided that a fresh medical examination will not be necessary in the case of--
(a) a person who has already been medically examined -by the prescribed medical standard and the appropriate medical authority, irrespective of the fact whether that person was permanent, quasi-permanent or :temporary in his previous appointment, and
(b) a person who is already in permanent, or quasi-permanent employ in the same line, and being eligible for promotion to the new appointment against -a promotion -quota of vacancies, is actually so promoted. Exemptions ;under Supplementary Rule 4-A will continue to be granted in the same way as at present by the Ministry of Finance in consultation, where necessary, with the Ministries of Home Affairs and Health.[MOF. OM No. F.53 (8) -V/50, dated the 5th October, 1950 No. F.55 (11) -E.V/59, dated the 12th February, 1960, and No. F.15 (1) - EN (B) t!6.2 dated the 5th July, 1962 and U.O. No. 3617-E.(V)/B/63 dated the 25th January, 1964.] ― 7 Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018 ************ 15.8 We do not have any doubt in our mind that as a normal course, in cases where the :rules for recruitment to new appointments -prescribe a fresh medical examination in respect of all candidates, all directly recruited/selected candidates, irrespective of whether they are already in permanent or quasi-permanent Government service in the same or in other departments or are fresh appointees, should undergo a medical examination by the prescribed standard and by the prescribed medical authority. (MM. of Health OM No F'.5(11)-12/57 M-II (Pt. II) dated the 17th December, 1957), which cannot be overlooked that mandates a second appeal shall be permissible in doubtful cases and under very special circumstances.
15.9 The present cases fall in category of doubtful cases and under very special circumstances in as much as firstly , the review medical board has been constituted within short span of time for the candidates who have come under zone of consideration in select list amongst large number of aspirants after crossing all stages of selection process and their candidature.
In present case, one more aspect also needs to be seen is that the rejection is shown only with the aspect of ―fit or ―unfit. However, specifically, the rules of the instructions prescribed that category of reporting of finding by the medical authorities and examining by it shall record one of the categories - ―fit, unfit or temporarily fit. (Ref : Tattoo can be removed- W.P.(C) 1762/2024, titled Sachin Kuman Vs. Union of India and Ors. and W.P.(C) 1789/2024, titled Dnyaneshwar Devarshe Vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 07.02.2024). ―The medical re-assessment illustratively has highlighted above has already given finding with respect to either fit or unfit. No finding as to whether the applicant is temporarily unfit has been given, more particularly, in light of the fact when the tattoos itself are permissible.‖ ( emphasis) 8.2 We find that "the RME Board consisting of 03 Medical Officers re-examined the present applicant and found him suffering from congenital anomaly involving "3rd toe overlapping over 2nd toe of Lt. Foot". On carefully examining the opinion of RME Board, none of the doctors who have special knowledge or expertise to verify the fact that "3rd toe overlapping over 2nd toe of Lt. Foot" affected the functionality of the applicant which would impair in his performance while performing the job for which he 8 Item No. 61/C-4 OA 3704/2018 is seeking employment. Even if we go by the submissions put forth on behalf of the respondents to say that the Serial No. 20 of 'General grounds for rejection', i.e., "any congenital abnormality, so as to impede efficient discharge of training/duties" is invoked, we find that the Medical Board has not given any finding or opined in this respect. The rejection appears to be in mechanical manner.
9. CONCLUSION:
9.1 In view of the above, we dispose of the present OA by directing the respondents to get the applicant re-examined by a duly constituted Medical Board, which would include an orthopedician, who shall opine in light of Clause 20 of 'General grounds for rejection' for arriving at a just conclusion as regards whether the applicant is functionally fit for appointment or not. It is directed that the re-medical examination shall be undertaken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to convey the decision to the applicant. In the event, the applicant is found to be fit, further necessary action shall be taken in accordance with law. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /akshaya/