Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Medical Board vs Yugandhar on 3 January, 2024
1
GN, J. & VN, J.
W.A.No.251 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Writ Appeal No.251 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned Central
Government Counsel, for the appellants and Sri M. Kesava Rao,
learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The appellants herein are (1) the Medical Board (Staff
Selection Commission) rep. by its Senior Medical Officer; (2) the
Deputy Inspector General - Appellate Authority; and (3) the
Staff Selection Commission, rep. by its Regional Director (SR).
3. This intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order of
the learned Single Judge, dated 18.10.2022, rendered in W.P.
No.12228 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge was
pleased to issue the following directions on the writ petition of
the respondent herein.
"19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the
following directions:
(i) The proceedings dated 28.01.2014 of the
respondent No.1 and the proceedings, dated
22.03.2014 of the respondent No.2 are hereby
set aside; and
GN, J. & VN, J.
(ii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the
claim of the petitioner by taking into
consideration the opinion of the Medical Board,
N.I.M.S., Hyderabad, dated 11.04.2022, for
appointment of the petitioner as Constable
within a period of four (04) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order.
There shall be no order as to costs."
4. The parties herein are referred to by their nomenclature
before the learned Single Judge.
5. At the very outset, we would like to place on record the
shock this case has given to the Court. It is a case where the
candidate has been otherwise found fully qualified and whose
desire for employment with the Security Forces has taken a
beating on account of an alleged deformity of the little finger. As
is often said that fate can be sometimes cruel and this is a
classic example of cruel fate where a candidate, fit as a fiddle, is
made to run around the corridors of the justice dispensation
system for ten long years, which even to a layman would appear
unjustified.
6. The petitioner is present before the Court today and we
have observed his hands and but for a little crookedness, the
little fingers of both hands are fully formed and but for the bent
GN, J. & VN, J.
or little crookedness, even we as laymen can confidently state
that the so called deformity would not in any way prove to be
an impediment in the petitioner's endeavour to discharge his
duties with the Central Industrial Security Force ("C.I.S.F.").
The Force, which otherwise would have the benefit of a fit and
determined person, has lost out the same to the vagaries of the
system, which in the instant case has been compounded by
sheer negligence on the part of professionals.
7. After hearing the learned counsels, we had asked the
Medical Officer, who had examined and certified the petitioner
as being unfit, to appear and assist the Court. We were
informed that the Doctor has been posted to Arunachal
Pradesh. Hence, we deemed it appropriate to grant liberty to
the Medical Officer to make his appearance through virtual
mode. Today, we have heard Dr.Surender Chowdary, the then
Medical Officer, who examined the petitioner and issued the
certificate holding him to be unfit. We have perused the
certificate in detail and the Government guidelines and we have
posed several queries to the Medical Officer, to which queries,
the Medical Officer's only refrain was that he has relied on
certain guidelines issued by the Department and on the basis of
GN, J. & VN, J.
those guidelines, he has certified that the petitioner to be unfit.
The Medical Officer, was neither able to detail the guidelines
that he had followed, apart from stating in general terms,
nothing in specific nor detail was placed before us by the
Medical Officer though we had put the learned counsel on
notice as to why this Court required his assistance. Hence, the
failure to produce the necessary guidelines, in our opinion, is
inexcusable. That, apart the bare observation of the Medical
Officer, it is clear that there are no other medical records which
would go to demonstrate any inability on the part of the
petitioner to discharge his duties, if he was selected to the post.
8. To a specific query from the Court, as to whether the
deformity was sufficient enough to incapacitate the petitioner or
reduce the efficiency of the petitioner to perform his duties, the
Medical Officer would plead ignorance and would merely
reiterate that the certificate was issued on the basis of the
guidelines and he would further state that he presumed that
the deformity would be an impediment in the petitioner's effort
to discharge his duties efficiently. When we queried further
about the basis for such presumption with reference to the
alleged deformity, no answers were forthcoming.
GN, J. & VN, J.
9. We have also heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned
Central Government Counsel, appearing for the appellants, in
detail. Matter was passed over in order to give an opportunity
to the appellants to place before this Court any material or
record in support of their contention and justifying the medical
certificate. In the post-lunch session, the appellants have
placed on record the guidelines (revised) stipulated by the
Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division-II), Government of
India, dated 20.05.2015.
10. We have perused the same. Under the guidelines, several
instructions and clarifications have been issued to eliminate,
presumably, any arbitrariness in the process of certification of
the physical fitness of the candidates. Sl. No.5 of the guidelines
stipulates the parameters for general examination and
Sl.No.5(g) reads as follows:
"Limbs, hands & feet should be well formed & fully
developed and there shall be perfect motion of all the joints."
11. Implying thereby, the limbs i.e. hands and feet should be
fully formed and there should be motion of all joints. If the
medical certificate is appreciated in this background, we do not
find any opinion recorded which states that the motion of the
GN, J. & VN, J.
joints is restricted or there is no motion of the joints of the little
finger because of the alleged deformity.
12. It would also be interesting to note Sl.No.5 (j) which
stipulates that general examination should reveal that feet and
toes are well formed. Similar stipulation is not found for the
hands and fingers. Sl.No.6 stipulates the general grounds for
rejection.
13. The only other ground of some import would be Sl.No.6 (4)
which reads as under:
"(4). Generally impaired constitution, so as to impede
efficient discharge of training/duties."
As observed supra and at the cost of repetition, there is no
opinion recorded, either by the medical officer or the medical
board that the bend or crookedness in the little finger, would
come in the way of discharging duties and that too efficiently.
14. This Court observes that there are 29 indicators. The
remaining 28 apply to specific deformity or impediment and
none of them apply to either to the upper limb or palm or the
finger. Sl.No.7 details minor acceptable defects and the
relevant entry i.e. Sl.No.7 (l) reads as under:
GN, J. & VN, J.
"(l) Loss of only soft tissues of terminal phalanx of little
finger of one or both hands is to be accepted."
15. In the instant case, it is not even a case of loss of soft
tissues, as the little fingers of both hands appear well rounded.
The Note appended to Sl.No.7 makes an interesting reading and
they are extracted for the sake of convenience:
"NOTE:
(a) In all cases where a candidate suffering from
trifling defects is accepted the Recruiting Medical Officer
should fully satisfy himself that the defect will not in any way
affect the efficiency of candidate and the defects should
invariably be mentioned in recruitment form.
(b) Candidates suffering from minor defects of ordinary
nature such as simple sores, shoe bite, common cold and
similar other ailment which usually last only a few days, may
be accepted. Recruiting Medical Officer before accepting such
a candidate must fully satisfy himself that the disease is likely
to be cured in a few days with outdoor treatment.
(c) In doubtful cases candidates may be referred to a
specialist for examination and opinion which may include X-
Ray examination or any other special investigation/test/
examination."
16. Note (a) and (c) are of relevance. It is probably this
burden the Medical Officer found onerous and in order to avoid
expending his energy for recording his opinion, chose the easier
way out and declared the candidate unfit with a mere sentence.
It is this, which in our opinion, is the bedrock upon which the
GN, J. & VN, J.
respondents should have established their case. A reading of
the Note (a) and (c) makes it amply clear that the opinion of the
Medical Officer cannot be whimsical, but, should be backed by
reasons, not only for recommending but also for rejecting the
case of the candidate.
17. It cannot be gainfully argued that, grounds should be
recorded only for recommending a candidate as fit, and despite
trifling defects, no reasons be recorded for certifying a
candidate as unfit, when no obvious deformity or impairment is
present. If such a case is accepted, it would amount to and
give scope for arbitrariness and the instant case is a classic
example of that. The impasse that has led to this Writ Petition
and the Writ Appeal is directly traceable to the negligent
conduct of the Medical Officer and the Review Board. It is
shocking to see that the Review Board, consisting of three
doctors, have proceeded to affirm the opinion of the Medical
Officer even without a bare discussion about the deformity or
the effects of the deformity in the performance and discharge of
the duties. The omissions and commissions, which colour this
case with arbitrariness, leave this Court with no option, but to
GN, J. & VN, J.
express anguish in the manner in which lives and careers of the
burning youth of this country is stifled & trifled with.
18. The statement of the Medical Officer to the Court, that he
had examined more than 30 candidates a day leaves a lot to
desire. The pressure of work cannot be an excuse to condone
an act which has condemned a youth from his chosen path of
serving a dedicated Force. Yet, we also appreciate the reality
and pragmatic approach, which would move the Court to hold
it's hands from making any observation against the Medical
Officer. But, we cannot extend the same yardstick to the
Review Board, more so, when the review was set in motion by
the candidate seeking justification for his rejection. The Review
Board despite being nudged by the candidate, in our opinion,
has behaved like the infamous Roman Emperor Nero. The
Review Board, consisting of senior doctors, was expected and it
would not be out of the ordinary to expect such persons
eminence, a little more care and concern in the discharge of
their duties. This is a case which is an example of gross
injustice where a person who was otherwise fully eligible and
more suitable than the candidature of other candidates,
actually suffering from physical deformities, has been
GN, J. & VN, J.
languishing and has lost a valuable decade of service which can
be directly attributed to the system. Systemic failure cannot be
a ground to deny justice to the candidate who was otherwise, in
our opinion, also fully qualified. In our opinion, the Writ
Appeal, in our opinion, appears to be borne, more out of ego
than out of any merit. Neither the pleadings nor the material
demonstrates even an iota of evidence which would support the
conclusion drawn by the Review Board and the Appellate
Authority.
19. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate and
most justified to dismiss the Writ Appeal with exemplary costs.
We have examined the Appeal and the case of the appellants
from every conceivable angle and we do not find a grain of
justification for the appeal. Time, money, resources and
precious judicial time has been, in our considered opinion,
wasted on this litigation just to sustain an erroneous opinion.
20. In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal is dismissed
with exemplary costs, quantified at Rs.3.00 Lakhs, which shall
be paid by the appellants 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.1.50 Lakhs
each. The appellants 1 and 2 shall deposit the costs within a
GN, J. & VN, J.
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Out of which, the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled
to recover the costs of Rs.1.00 Lakh from the members of the
Review Board, if it so deems it fit and necessary. It is entitled to
do so after issuing a notice to the members of the Review Board
and after affording them an opportunity of hearing. The
directions of the learned Single Judge in our opinion are fully
justified and supported by cogent reasons and do not call for
any interference.
21. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed with costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
____________________________
JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date:03.01.2024.
Note:
L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O
cs/anr
GN, J. & VN, J.
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
% Dated 03-01-2024.
# 1.Medical Board (Staff Selection Commission), rep. by its
Senior Medical Officer, CAPFs Constable (GD) Examination,
2013-14, CISF, KRTC MUNDALI DME CONST/GD-13 at NISA,
Hyderabad, P.O. Hakimpet, Hyderabad - 500 078 & Ors.
..... Appellants
Vs.
$ S.Yugandhar S/o.Thirupati Rao, R/o.Venkateswara Colony,
Thagarapuvalasa, Bhemeli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
..Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad,
Learned Central Govt. Counsel.
^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri M.Kesava Rao
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred: Nil.
GN, J. & VN, J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
1.Medical Board (Staff Selection Commission), rep. by its Senior
Medical Officer, CAPFs Constable (GD) Examination, 2013-14,
CISF, KRTC MUNDALI DME CONST/GD-13 at NISA,
Hyderabad, P.O. Hakimpet, Hyderabad - 500 078 & Ors.
..... Appellants
Vs.
S.Yugandhar S/o.Thirupati Rao, R/o.Venkateswara Colony,
Thagarapuvalasa, Bhemeli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
..Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03-01-2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
1) Whether Reporters of Local newspapers -Yes-
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2) Whether the copies of judgment may be marked -Yes-
to
Law Reporters/Journals
3) Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the -Yes-
fair copy of the Judgment?
JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
