Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010105402022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/340/2022
SUNIL VERMA
S/O- ARJUN VERMA, R/O- KONWARI PATHAR GAON, P.O. BISFUTIA, P.S.
BORDUBI, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BLOCK NO-12
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003.
3:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE
NORTH EASTERN REGION
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR
WESTERN BLOCK
HOUSEFED COMPLEX SURVEY
BELTOLA
GHY-06.
4:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL (RECRUITMENT)
O/O THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL
CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH)
EAST BLOCK-07
LEVEL-4
SECTOR-01
R.K.PURAM
Page No.# 2/6
NEW DELHI- 110066
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 02.11.2022 Heard Mr. A. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 10.08.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4178/2020, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this appeal. The following facts emerge from the records of the appeal:
The appellant/original petitioner participated in a recruitment process for the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces/National Investigating Agency/Secretariat Security Force and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that the he successfully cleared the written examination and was called for physical standard test/medical examination. As the record unfolds, the appellant/original petitioner failed in the distant view test in the Detailed Medical Examination conducted by the recruiting authority. The record further shows that the appellant/original petitioner underwent a medical examination at the Assam Medical College and Hospital, at Dibrugarh on 10.02.2020 and his vision in both the eyes were found to be within the normal range of 6/6 and 6/6, on the basis of which the Refractionist of the Department of Opthalmology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, issued a certificate to the appellant/original petitioner. On the Page No.# 3/6 basis of the said certificate, the appellant/original petitioner applied for review of the medical examination conducted by the recruiting authority and, accordingly, a review medical examination was held on 18.09.2020 at the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, at Guwahati, wherein the appellant/original petitioner was declared to be having defective distant vision of 6/12 and, ultimately, the appellant/original petitioner was declared unfit by the Review Medical Board. The said decision of the Review Medical Board was challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various grounds and, more particularly, on the ground that the medical certificate issued by the Refractionist of the Department of Opthalmology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, should be taken into consideration and/or the appellant/original petitioner should be sent for re-examination by the Review Medical Board. The learned Single Judge, having considered the contentions raised, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and, being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/original petitioner is before this Court in the present appeal.
3. Mr. A. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner has taken this Court to the factual matrix and, inter alia, has submitted that the learned Single Judge committed an obvious error in not considering the prayer of the appellant/original petitioner in view of the conflicting opinion of the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, and the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner that the appellant/original petitioner should have been sent by the recruiting agency for a second review medical examination. Mr. Gupta has reiterated the contentions which had been raised before the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the appeal requires consideration by this Court.
4. As against this, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent authorities has supported the impugned order. It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi that complete fitness is a sine qua non for being recruited in a sensitive force and any deviation from the minimum standard would be detrimental to the National Page No.# 4/6 security of the country and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, which warrants inference by this Court. He further submits that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have given anxious thought to the contentions raised and have also perused the impugned judgment and order.
6. The learned Single Judge has succinctly considered the Notification dated 18.05.2012, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, and also the policy guidelines which are applicable to the post in question. The learned Single Judge has also considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vikash Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., S.B. Civil W.P. No. 10612/2020, decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 09.03.2021. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the factual matrix of the case, has observed thus:
"9) In the medical examination report dated 10.02.2020, issued by the AMC, Dibrugarh, the use of words "other reason not pertaining to visual acuity" in the certificate would only rule out visual acuity, but would not be sufficient to rule out any other factors which might have been the cause for the Review Medical Board to return a finding that the petitioner was found unfit on account of "VA 6/12 right; and VA 6/12 left". The medical examination certificate dated 10.02.2020 issued by AMC, Dibrugarh is not sufficient to rule out that "other reason not pertaining to visual acuity" , may still lead to defective distant vision despite visual acuity in right eye and left eye being 6/6. Thus, though it appears that there are conflicting opinions of the vision acuity of the petitioner, which was 6/9 in initial medical rejection certificate, and it was 6/6 in the certificate issued by the AMC, Dibrugarh, and yet it is mentioned as 6/12 in both the eyes in Page No.# 5/6 the Review Medical Examination Report.
10) It is seen from the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles, Revised guidelines as on May, 2015, that the details of procedures that is required to be carried out while recruiting personnel in the CAPFs and Assam Rifles has been mentioned therein. Moreover, as per documents annexed to the affidavit-in- opposition, it is seen that vide notification bearing F. No. 1-45024/1/2008-Pers.II dated 18.05.2012, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Police-II Division, Policy Guidelines was set-up and issued for the CAPFs and Assam Rifles personnel, which is of 33 pages. In this writ petition, there is nothing on record to show that by following the standards, procedures and equipments mentioned in the said Policy Guidelines, the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Board could not have been reached. Moreover, in one of the preceding paragraphs, the Court has taken note of the nature of job profile of a Refractionist and therefore, taking note of the fact that the Medical Specialist involved in the recruitment process of CAPFs and Assam Rifles are guided by tailor-made guidelines taking note of the nature of duty required to be performed by the personnel of the CAPFs and Assam Rifles the Court is unable to return a finding that the medical opinion of the Review Medical Board is fallacious and to direct the respondents to undertake a fresh review medical examination of the petitioner.
11) In the totality of the facts and circumstances, taking note of the fact that the Review Medical Examination Report dated 18.09.2020, was by a Medical Board consisting of three Doctors, out of which the Page No.# 6/6 Member-I is holding degree of MBBS with Diploma in Ophthalmology, and at the relevant time serving at Assam Rifles Composite Hospital, Dimapur, Nagaland, is it is not possible for the Court to arrive at a finding that in view of (i) the medical examination report dated 10.02.2020 by the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, and (ii) the medical certificate dated 19.09.2020, issued by the O.P.D., GMC&H, the Review Medical Examination Report was liable to be discarded and/or rejected and to direct a fresh Review Medical Examination of the petitioner to be done.
12) Moreover, from the Medical Certificate dated 19.09.2020, issued by the O.P.D., GMC&H, it does not contain any endorsement that the concerned medical specialist had taken note of (i) the initial Medical Examination Report dated 04.02.2020, declaring the petitioner to be unfit, (ii) the Medical Examination Report dated 10.02.2020 issued by AMC, Dibrugarh, and (iii) the Review Medical Board Examination report dated 18.09.2020, declaring the petitioner to be unfit had been considered."
7. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. No case is made out for interference by this Court. The appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant