Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ritik Koshta vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2017
W.P. No. 186/2017
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,
JABALPUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice SubodhAbhyankar, J
Writ Petition No. 186 /2017
Ritik Koshta
Vs.
Union of India and others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Riyaz Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Jain, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the
Union of India.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on the 28th day of November, 2017)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the inaction of the part of respondents to consider his candidature for the purpose of constable despite the fact that he was initially declared fit in physical examination.
2. The petitioner's case is that he had appeared in the examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission, Government of India for selection process of Constable (G.D.) in ITBPF. After passing the written examination he also underwent medical examination in which he was declared unfit but subsequently on 01.06.2016 he was given a certificate of fitness wherein it is mentioned that earlier certificate was given on the basis of error of judgment. The aforesaid certificate of fitness dated 01.06.2016 is filed as Annexure P/2. Petitioner's contention is that subsequently, in his physical re-examination W.P. No. 186/2017 2 vide medical certificate dated 24.08.2016 he was again found to be physically unfit on the ground that there is Hypodermic tattoo marks on the right hand of the petitioner as also deformity in his left hand thumb. A representation in this behalf was also submitted by the petitioner on 31.06.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a similarly situated person namely Manoj Kumar Kushwaha who secured 13 marks and was having tattoo marks, has been declared fit in the medical test but the petitioner has been held to be disqualified. Thus, the petitioner has prayed that he should also be given similar benefit and be declared fit.
4. On the other hand, in their reply, the respondents' contention is that the petitioner has been declared unfit on the ground that there is Hypodermic tattoo marks on the right hand of the petitioner as also deformity in his left hand thumb. It is further submitted that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner passed the written examination, thereafter, admit card was issued to him for Detail Medical Examination by the office of the Director General, CRPF. The medical test was conducted on 24.05.2016 but the petitioner was declared unfit on account of tattoo marks over inner aspect of right forearm and deformity of thumb (left hand).
5. The petitioner has also filed an appeal against the aforesaid rejection on medical ground in pursuance whereof he was again re-examined at RME Centre Telecom Bn, ITBPF, Shivpuri, by Review Medical Board consisting of three Doctors on 24.08.2016, who also found him unfit on account of (i) Hypodermic Tattoo mark on anterior aspect of Rt. Forearm and
(ii) Deformity of distal Phalanx of Lt. thumb, R-02.
6. It is further submitted by the respondent that certain guidelines dated 20.05.2015 have been issued in this behalf W.P. No. 186/2017 3 which are known as recruitment medical examination which also provide for acceptable or unacceptable tattoo marks on the body of a person and since the petitioner falls under the category of unacceptable tattoo marks, therefore, he could not qualify in the test.
7. Petitioner's contention is that once he was found medically fit for the job, then there was no occasion for the respondents to medically re-examine the petitioner.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is apparent from the medical certificate Annexure P/2 issued by one doctor only that on 01.06.2016 the petitioner was found to be medically fit for service by the respondent's doctor whereby the earlier report certifying him as unfit has been reversed on the ground that it was an error of judgment, however, subsequently on medical re-examination by the Medical Board constituting of three Doctors, it was found that there were certain deformities on the person of the petitioner which are tattoo mark and other deformities in the left hand thumb of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioner that he should not have been medically re-examined, cannot be accepted. It is the prerogative of the respondents to medically examine or re-examine the petitioner to test his fitness for the requisite job and if the Board consisting of three Doctors have found the petitioner to be unfit, in that case, no interference can be made in such medical opinion as the same is in line with the guidelines dated 20.05.2015.
10. Under these circumstances, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. It is further observed that had there been no physical deformity in the left W.P. No. 186/2017 4 hand of the petitioner and had there been no tattoo marks in the right forearm of the petitioner, he should have been appointed to the aforesaid post. Hence, it is advisable to the respondents to widely advertise in general regarding ineligibility of a candidate due to tattoo marks which are in vogue now a days in the younger generation who also aspire to be in the armed forces and despite fulfilling all the eligibility criteria would be left behind owing to tattoo marks about which nobody informed them.
11. A certified copy of this order be also sent to respondent No.2 i.e. Director General (Recruitment) Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi.
(SubodhAbhyankar) JUDGE 28/11/2017 Vikram Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2017.11.30 12:18:32 +05'30'