The High Court of Jharkhand in an appeal filed for praying for the issuance of directions to the respondents to conduct a review medical examination of the petitioner after he was declared medically fit by a government hospital held that medical examination was a mandatory requirement for an appointment but the same has to be followed honestly and every policy decision involved with the same should be transparent so that the candidates are fully satisfied and even if there is any iota of differences in the opinion, the same needs to be clarified.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner applied for an appointment under various posts after an advertisement was floated by the Staff Selection Commission. The petitioner was held to be eligible in all respects and was declared successful in PST and PET examination after which the petitioner appeared in Detailed Medical Examination, where he was declared medically unfit. The petitioner then got himself examined by a medical practitioner at a government hospital who declared him medically fit. Hence, being aggrieved by the report of the Detailed Medical Examination, the petitioner preferred an appeal for a Review Medical Examination annexing the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by the Govt. Medical Practitioner which was summarily rejected by the Appellate Authority.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the appellate authority has erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of non-enclosure of Form-1 as nowhere in the entire recruitment scheme, there was any requirement for enclosure of Form-1 for filing an appeal against the Detailed Medical Examination. It was further argued that the action of the respondents in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner is arbitrary, biased and against the terms of the recruitment scheme as the petitioner was examined and declared medically fit by the Govt. Medical Practitioner and to that effect, a Medical Fitness Certificate was also issued by him.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the Appellate Authority examined RME Appeal in light of recruitment notification and uniform guidelines issued by MHA during the scrutiny of which the appellate panel found that “either a photograph of candidate not attached or not attested by Medical Officer in Form-3 (Medical Fitness Certificate) and/ or thumb impression not attested” and further for medical unfitness in DME not attached (Form-01) and moreover, Specialist Opinion not obtained, due to which panel could not ascertain the infirmities for which he has been declared unfit and hence, the appeal of the petitioner has summarily been rejected.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the material on record and stated that it can be inferred that the medical examination was a mandatory requirement for an appointment but the same has to be followed honestly and every policy decision involved with the same should be transparent so that the candidates are fully satisfied and even if there is any iota of differences in the opinion, the same needs to be clarified.
The court stated that in the present case, there is a difference in the medical opinion of the Selection Board and that of other Government Doctors from which medical report has been obtained by the petitioner. The court then referred to the impugned order which directed the respondents to constitute another medical board for re-examination of the petitioners and affirmed it.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to constitute a Review Medical Board and further stated that if the report of the board is found in favour of the petitioner, then an offer of appointment is to be issued to him.
Case Title: Vikas Kumar vs Union of India and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak
Case No.: W.P.(S). No. 5437 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shresth Gautam
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
