Meghalaya High Court
Vijay Manjhi & Anr vs . Union Of India & Ors on 21 April, 2022
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh
Serial No.06
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No.14/2021
Date of Order: 21.04.2022
Vijay Manjhi & anr Vs. Union of India & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. N. Syngkon, Adv
For the Respondents : Dr. N. Mozika, ASG with
Ms. K. Gurung, Adv
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) This appeal brings out the importance of institutional integrity and how apparently trivial anomalies which are sought to be justified or attempted to be passed off as mistakes may not be as innocent and, indeed, may only be the proverbial tip of the iceberg of malaise that has the potential to contaminate the entire sea.
2. But one must begin with the mistake committed by the joint appellants before referring to the other acts of omission and commission. Page 1 of 9
3. The two appellants were independent candidates who had applied to be recruited as constables in 2018 recruitment process for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). Both the appellants failed at the detailed medical examination stage, though for different causes. As such, the appellants ought to have filed individual petitions since there was no commonality in their dissimilar causes apart from the fact that they had applied for the same post and were found to be medically unfit.
4. This is not a hyper-technical point. This has also nothing to do with the nominal additional court-fees that should have been paid on the second petition. Disparate matters cannot be dealt with together and, to such extent, the adjudication in this case calls for consideration of the individual cases independently. The appeal has been so assessed.
5. The writ court dismissed the petition upon a rather cursory look thereat and in three terse paragraphs. Here was a case of two young citizens aspiring to obtain coveted government jobs and who perceived that they had been unfairly treated and deliberately denied the positions that they deserved. In such a scenario, the citizens may have expected some more respect and to be informed why their causes were found unworthy in somewhat better terms than evident from the order assailed in appeal. Even the overwhelming burden of pending matters or the lack Page 2 of 9 of adequate resources can be no excuse to belie the minimum expectation of every litigant of due consideration of his cause. Hours need not be expended and tomes need not be wasted on apparently trite matters; but the gamut of the grievance must be noticed unless there is a legal impediment to the consideration thereof or a bar to the grant of the relief sought.
6. There is no doubt that when the candidates have been found to be medically unfit, the writ court would ordinarily not issue a mandamus for such persons to be recruited. However, the writ court is obliged to look into the circumstances and grounds if an irregularity in the process is complained of. It does not appear that the writ court turned the pages of the writ petition to even ascertain the nature of the grievance.
7. In this case, the first appellant was found unfit in the detailed medical examination on the ground of a perforation in his tympanic membrane in the right ear. Upon availing of the review medical examination in terms of the rules applicable to the recruitment process, the first appellant was referred to a specialist. He was examined at the North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIHMS) and the opinion of such institution was that the right tympanic membrane was intact and the right ear audiometry test Page 3 of 9 was normal. Upon the first appellant, armed with favourable report of NEIGRIHMS approaching the respondent authorities, he was found to have a problem in the left ear on the basis of an audiometry report that had not been called for and it is the admitted position that audiometry tests are not conducted on the candidates.
8. If the writ court had taken the time to look into the papers, it would have discovered that when the first appellant's right ear was found to be normal, the respondent authorities rejected him because of his left ear and, on the basis of a test that other candidates are not subjected to. Such a scenario would not be acceptable to any judicial conscience and there appears to have been more to the rejection than meets the eye. If normal citizens seeking public employment cannot approach the appointing authority with the confidence that they will be tested on the basis of their ability and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations, there is bound to be resentment that may lead to anarchy. And if Constitutional courts tasked with the duty to protect rights abdicate their authority to step in when necessary by giving due consideration to the complaining citizen's grievance, it is a slur on the institution.
Page 4 of 9
9. If it was the right ear of the first appellant that was defective, then the review process should have been confined to the right ear and the authorities had no business to look into the condition of the left ear, since that had already been passed in accordance with the previous detailed medical examination. It was as if the respondents wanted the first appellant not to qualify that they picked out some form of an excuse to rule him medically unfit.
10. As far as the second appellant is concerned, he was found to suffer from hypertension in course of the detailed medical examination. Upon applying for a review medical examination in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the second appellant was tested again. This time the report indicated that he was found to suffer from hypertension upon three readings being taken over a period of seven hours. However, the measurements or readings are not indicated in the report. It may be noticed that in course of the initial detailed medical examination, the second appellant was found to have blood pressure measuring 134/96 (in terms of millimeters of mercury) which was said to be the average of three readings.
11. There is no doubt that the rules for recruitment indicated that the accepted parameters of blood pressure would be between 140 and 90 Page 5 of 9 mmHg. In other words, persons with diastolic pressure greater than 90 mmHg or systolic pressure greater than 140 mmHg would be disqualified.
12. Even though judges qualify in law examinations and may not possess any medical expertise, when it comes to the rudimentary medical feature as blood pressure, most educated persons have a rough idea. It is no rocket science to know that the level of blood pressure can vary to a considerable extent in course of the day or because of the weather conditions or other influences. In particular, when a recruitment process is conducted and the candidates are required to queue up and undergo a long period of wait before they are called in, the anxiety and tiredness may result in the usual fluctuation and an experienced medical practitioner would disregard the same, unless it is the brief of the examiner to find the tiniest bit of fault to make out an excuse to eliminate a candidate.
13. In course of the detailed medical examination, it was exemplary that the appropriate authorities conducting such examination had the patience to take three readings over a period of seven hours, but such readings should have been reflected for, at least, an objective satisfaction that the prescribed parameters had not been met. Page 6 of 9
14. The manner in which the ultimate medical examinations were conducted in both cases left a lot to be desired and there may be some basis to the general perception that these recruitment processes are not conducted in the most fair manner or with the degree of indifference or impartiality that every not-so-influential candidate lacking a godfather or the requisite purse strings would expect.
15. The unfair prejudice suffered in either case cries out to be corrected.
16. These two candidates had applied for the 2018 recruitment process and it is possible that the recruitment process of 2018 has not been completed since the detailed medical examination was conducted towards the end of October, 2020. In the light of the unfair manner in which both the appellants were treated, they deserve to be examined only for the specific grounds on which their candidatures were rejected earlier and, if found fit on the relevant ground alone, their candidatures should be processed in accordance with law. In the event the recruitment process of 2018 has already been completed, the same tests pertaining to the deficiencies found in the appellants would be conducted in the usual course by the respondent authorities and if the appellants are found fit, their candidatures should be processed in accordance with law for the Page 7 of 9 next subsequent year for which the recruitment process remains open and, irrespective of any age-bar, they should be recruited if they meet the other non-medical parameters.
16. In addition, the appellants will be paid Rs.75,000/- each irrespective of whether they are, or either of them is, successful in the further medical examination to be conducted in accordance with this order and confined to the area of perceived deficiency discovered earlier.
17. Every citizen deserves to be treated fairly, particularly when it comes to recruitment or employment. Government positions are advertised for the candidates in the relevant categories to be recruited on sound and objective criteria where the element of subjectivity has to be kept at the minimum to ensure that nepotism and favouritism do not come into play. Unfortunately, the shoddy manner in which these appellants were dealt with does not instill any confidence in the system.
18. The perfunctory order impugned herein is set aside. Ordinarily, since the writ petition was not considered at all, the matter ought to have been remanded for a fresh consideration. However, that would have resulted in more suffering for the appellants and the judicial system is better served with less remand-or-referral judges. Page 8 of 9
19. The order impugned dated April 9, 2021 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The costs as directed should be paid individually within six weeks from date and the second respondent (Staff Selection Commission) will be responsible therefor. It is hoped that the award of costs would act as a catalyst to ensure both integrity and accountability.
20. WA No.14 of 2021 is allowed as above.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
21.04.2022
"Lam DR-PS"
Page 9 of 9