Prashant Grewal vs Union Of India And Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4687 Del

19
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               +     W.P.(C)No.1962/2010


                                   Date of Decision : 5th October, 2010
%


      PRASHANT GREWAL                ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. S.N. Bhardwaj, Adv.

                      versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.           ..... Respondents
                     Through : Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Adv. with
                               Mr. Asit Tiwari, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                     NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                    NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                            NO
        reported in the Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. This writ petition is premised on a contention that the

petitioner has been wrongly declared as medically unfit by the

respondents. The petitioner places reliance on an examination

conducted on 18th February, 2010 by doctor of All India

Institute of Medical Sciences and finding him fit.

2. The respondents have explained that the petitioner, who

had qualified the entrance examination of the National Defence

Academy was initially found unfit on 23rd October, 2009 for all

three services by the Air Force Central Medical Examination,

Subroto Park, New Delhi for following reasons:-

"1). Overweight;

2). Multiple Schmorl's Nodes and

3) Esophoria breaking into Esotropia."

3. The petitioner was assessed by the Senior Advisor, Base

Hospital, Delhi Cantt. who had found him unfit for all the three

services in view of these difficulties.

4. The petitioner's Appeal Medical Board was conducted by

the Specialist at the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. on 23rd

November, 2009, It is noteworthy that the surgery and

orthopedic specialists, had found that there was no evidence of

Multiple Schmorl nodes. Further, the ophthalmologist had

opined that the petitioner's Esophoria was not breaking into

Esotropia and, therefore, he was unfit for the navy and air

force. The board had also opined that the petitioner was

overweight and, therefore, unfit for all these services.

5. The petitioner had requested a review medical board

which was conducted by the respondents on 6th January, 2010.

The petitioner found unfit for all three services due to his

suffering from the condition of Esophoria breaking into

Esotropia. It is noteworthy that this examination of the

petitioner was conducted by Senior Specialists in the field

concerned.

6. The petitioner places reliance on his examination and

declaration of fitness by civilian hospitals. The doctor, who

conducted the medical examination in the civilian hospital by

virtue of the nature of their duties, would not have the requisite

experience for making assessment of fitness for the defence

forces and para military forces. It needs no elaboration that the

norms for fitness requirements in civil post and defence

services are different. Whereas a person may ordinarily be

eligible for appointment in the civil post, he/she may not be

eligible according to the rigorous medical standards which are

required to be met so far as defence forces are concerned.

In this background, the reliance by the petitioner on a

certificate which he has produced from the All India Institute of

Medical Sciences is misplaced.

7. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that the

certificate relied upon by the petitioner has been given by a

Senior Resident of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences

and it is not clear as to whether the such Senior Resident

possessed even the requisite qualification in the specialty is

concerned.

8. Wing Commander R. Mohanti, Joint Director Medical

Services of the Air Headquarter is present in the Court. He has

explained that the condition which the petitioner has been

found would seriously impact the candidate's vision and he

would be unable to perceive fast moving objects. This is

certainly a material consideration so far as the fitness for all

the three forces i.e. the army, navy and air force, is concerned.

In view of the opinion of the experts in the specialty concerned,

so far as the fitness of the petitioner is concerned, we find no

justification or basis for overruling the same.

9. We also find that bald and unsustainable allegations have

been made in the writ petition without any justification. The

same were also unwarranted. The respondents have denied all

the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

For the reason that the petitioner is a young boy and

threshold of his career, we are not proceeding further on this

aspect. We have otherwise found no merit in the writ petition

and application which are hereby dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J OCTOBER 5, 2010 HL