Dhananjay Kumar vs Uoi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5001 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Decision :4th December, 2009

+                      W.P.(C) No.7993/2009

        DHANANJAY KUMAR                       ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate

                   versus

        CRPF & ANR.                           ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                 No
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. With reference to the decision reported as 131

(2006) DLT 170 (DB) Anish Barla vs. UPSC, learned counsel for

the petitioner states that notwithstanding a Review Medical

Board being constituted, this court has jurisdiction to pass a

direction to the CRPF directing that the petitioner should be

forthwith issued a letter of appointment for the post of

Assistant Commandant.

2. The factual backdrop of the claim of the petitioner

is that having successfully cleared the written exam and the

physical endurance test he was opined to be not fit for

appointment when the Medical Board gave an opinion that due

to LATENT SQUINT WITH MILD PTOSIS OF EYE, the petitioner

was unfit for appointment to the post of Assistant

Commandant.

3. In layman's words, the petitioner is detected with a

light squint i.e. both eyes could not focus simultaneously at

the same point and the upper eyelid was dropping a little. The

petitioner got himself examined at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre

for Ophthalmic Sciences at All India Institute of Medical

Sciences where an Ophthalmologist opined that the petitioner

had a very mild dropping of the right upper eyelid but the

same was within physiological limits and is unlikely to interfere

with his field of vision and hence was not a hindrance for

performing duties. Pertaining to the squint it was opined that

the petitioner was having Exophoria of 2 pd BI for distance and

4 pd BI for near with good stereopsis.

4. The petitioner sought the constitution of a Review

Medical Board while enclosing the opinion of the

Ophthalmologist who had examined him at Dr. Rajendra

Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences at All India Institute of

Medical Sciences. A Review Medical Board presided over by an

Ophthalmologist and having two more Ophthalmologists on

the panel was constituted by CRPF. The Board reiterated the

non-suitability of the petitioner for employment on account of

latent squint and mild ptosis of the right eye.

5. Conceding to the position that there is a dropping of

the right eye upper eyelid, but alleging it to be mild and

disputing that the petitioner is squint eyed, placing reliance

upon the certificate given to the petitioner by the

Ophthalmologist of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic

Sciences at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, it is urged

that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.

6. As regards the applicability of the decision in Anish

Barla's case supra, suffice would it be to state that the taint

found in the said case was that the Review Medical Board

having no skin specialist or dermatologist as a member thereof

was found to have given an opinion pertaining to an inveterate

skin disease. It was held that an opinion of an expert on a

subject would be valid if the expert had knowledge and was

qualified to give opinion on the subject. In the instant case, all

the Members of the Review Medical Board were

Ophthalmologists and thus the ratio of Anish Barla's case does

not get attracted to the instant case.

7. On merits, it is conceded by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the dropping of the upper eyelid of the right

eye would restrict the field of vision of the petitioner, but

learned counsel urges that the same would be minimal and in

view of the certificate given by the doctor at AIIMS, it is

apparent that the same would not hinder the performance of

normal duties by the petitioner.

8. Now, obtaining a general certificate in generic

terms is of no help for the reason the nature of work and

duties to be performed at different levels may require a fitness

of a better kind.

9. It is for the authorities at CRPF to decide as to what

fitness levels are desired. Pertaining to vision, we may only

note that an Assistant Commandant, CRPF would be expected

to command troops in riotous conditions even in the dark and

thus may require a perfect eye sight and a perfect condition of

the eye.

10. Issues of fitness levels are a matter of policy and

therefore would be outside the domain of court interference

unless a challenge is made on the ground that the desired

fitness is arbitrary, in that the same has no connection with

the job to be performed. For example, a person who has lost

two fingers of a hand may be sufficiently disabled to be a

member of a Armed Force on account of the disability to

handle a fire arm, but would be suffering no disability if

required to be employed as a singer.

11. We note that there is no challenge made in the writ

petition to the physical standard required to be achieved as

desired by the respondent.

12. In the matter of expert opinion, the court cannot

substitute its opinion with that of the expert. The only

jurisdiction which a court would have would be to ensure that

the opinion on the subject is given by an expert in the field and

that the expert concerned has given his opinion based on

standards accepted by the experts in the field.

13. Since the petitioner has been found unsuitable even

at the Review Medical Board we see no scope to pass any

further orders in favour of the petitioner.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.

15. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

DECEMBER 04, 2009 nks