High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition praying for a direction to the respondents to set aside the result of the Detailed Medical Examination as well as the decision of the Review Medical Board, by virtue of which the petitioner was declared medically unfit for appointment as Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces on the ground of “undescended testis”.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) under the Sports Quota in the respondent no. 2, the petitioner preferred an application for being considered for the said post. The petitioner is a national-level Kabaddi player and has participated in several National, State and Zonal-level Kabaddi events. At the DME stage, the petitioner was declared medically unfit on the ground of “undescended testis”. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the finding of the DME and underwent an examination before the RMB. The RMB, found the petitioner to be medically unfit on the ground of “left sided undescended testes” He submits that the left testis of the petitioner was not found in either the inguinal canal or in the abdomen.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on an article by the Boston Children’s Hospital to submit that undescended testis is a medical condition where even though the testicle has been formed, it has not moved into the proper position. It was submitted that the Guidelines in Clauses 5(p), 6(28) and Clause 3(e) of Part XIII prescribe only “undescended testis” as a disqualification for appointment to CAPFs and a case of “no testis” is not a disqualification. He submitted that therefore; the petitioner has been wrongly declared as disqualified for appointment.
It was submitted that in the alternative, Clauses 5(p), 6(28) and (XIII)(3)(e) of the Guidelines be declared unconstitutional as they have become archaic, obsolete and completely arbitrary. It was submitted that persons with “undescended testis” are otherwise medically and physically fit and completely efficient to discharge their training as well as duty, but are debarred from joining the services due to the aforementioned clauses; making the said Clauses of the Guidelines violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court found that Dr. Pranjal Dubey, Splt. (Surgeon), explained that “undescended testis”, which is a ground for medical unfitness under the Guidelines, is a broad diagnosis. He stated that the case of “no testis”, therefore, falls within the scope of “undescended testis”. He submits that the case of “no testis” is, therefore, also considered as a medical disqualification for appointment to CAPFs.
Court stated that in view of the above report as well, it cannot be said that Clauses 5(p), 6(28) and (XIII)(3)(e) of the Guidelines are in any manner arbitrary or violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution.
HC relied upon the case of Km. Priyanka v. Union of India & Ors., where the Court held that “the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for the civilian employment. 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.”
The Guidelines also state as it is not the sole repository of all ailments and that the recruiting medical officer needs to use his clinical acumen, to the best of his knowledge and keeping in view the best interests of the Forces.
HC also relied upon the case of Milash Arrol Noronha vs. Union of India, where the Court had emphasized that the Guidelines cannot be said to be laying down all the complex ailments/grounds that would make a candidate unfit for appointment to Armed Forces.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the purported difference in the case of “undescended testis” and “no testis” argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner and cannot be accepted. In view of the above stated reasons, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla
Case Title: Gaurav Dalal v. Union Of India
Case Details: W.P.(C) 6595/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :