Rohit Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 284 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    WP(C) No.316/2012 & CM No.669/2012

%                         Date of Decision: 16.01.2012

Rohit Gautam                                               .... Petitioner

                      Through Mr.Vishwendra Verma & Mr.Ganesh
                              Kumar, Advocates

                                 Versus

Union of India & Ors.                                    .... Respondents

                      Through Mr.Sandeep    Khatri,   Advocate        for
                              Mr.Baldev Malik, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner has sought a direction to declare him successful

for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD), CAPF (s) for the year

2011-12 and to follow the results of the medical examination of the

petitioner conducted by the District Hospital in appeal and the medical

fitness certificate dated 9th August, 2011 issued by the concerned

hospital.

2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable under the

notification for recruitment of Constable (GD), CAPF (s) for the year

2011-12 by the Staff Selection Commission. The petitioner appeared in

the written examination and the result was declared in July, 2011 and

petitioner was declared to have qualified the written examination.

3. Thereafter the petitioner was sent for the physical standard test

and physical efficiency test. According to the petitioner he qualified even

the physical test and physical efficiency test. Thereafter the petitioner

had to undergo a medical examination and he appeared on 6th August,

2011 for the medical examination for combined recruitment of

Constable (GD) in CAPF (s) at CISF, NHCC, Saket, New Delhi.

4. Pursuant to the examination, the medical board declared the

petitioner unfit on account of the following reasons:-

"--Vitiligo, lucodermoil patches over both lower limbs, elbows and profuse---"

Petitioner was given an option to file an appeal against the finding

of the medical examination and to apply for a review medical

examination after obtaining the necessary medical certificate from the

medical practitioner as per Form No.CAPFs Constable (GD)/3. The

request for the review medical board had to reach the respondents

within a period of 15 days from the date of the medical examination

that is by 24th August, 2011.

5. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal along with a medical

fitness certificate obtained by the petitioner from Dr.Satya Singh, Senior

Consultant, District Hospital, Bijnour stipulating that the petitioner is

medically fit and holding that the opinion that the petitioner suffers

from Vitiligo, lucodermoil patches over both lower limbs, elbows and

profuse is on account of an error of judgment. Pursuant to the request

of the petitioner for the review medical examination the petitioner was

examined on 15th October, 2011 by a medical board of three doctors.

The review medical board on the basis of the opinion of the skin

specialist, Safdarjung Hospital also declared the petitioner unfit on

account of "Vitiligo, lucodermoil patches over both lower limbs, elbows

and profuse". Result of the review medical examination was also given

to the petitioner and he countersigned the same in token of receiving

the copy thereof. The petitioner, however, has only filed a copy of the

OPD slip of V.M.M.C and Safdarjung Hospital in the present writ

petition.

6. On 15th October, 2011 the petitioner was taken to Safdarjung

Hospital by the CISF Personnel, who allegedly told the concerned

doctors that the petitioner is suffering from "Vitiligo" and also showed

the proceedings of the medical board conducted by the respondents and

therefore, according to the allegations of the petitioner, only a

prescription had been given to the petitioner without examining the

petitioner

7. According to the petitioner the concerned personnel had told the

petitioner that the review is only a formality and that the petitioner‟s

appeal will be finally considered by the medical board and thus the

petitioner did not say anything to the personnel of the respondents or

the doctor except that he is not suffering from any problem.

8. The petitioner also relied on the recruitment process conducted

by the Uttar Pradesh Police in respect of the petitioner in the year 2009

by application No.125053 in which for selection to the said force the

petitioner was declared physically fit in the medical examination

conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police on 19th December, 2009.

9. According to the petitioner all the forces/paramilitary

forces/police have the same physical examination test as well as

medical examination to ascertain the eligibility and suitability of the

candidate. The petitioner has thus contended that two authorities have

declared the petitioner medically fit whereas the CISF Medical Board

and review medical board has declared the petitioner unfit. In the

circumstances it is contended that there is no reason to declare the

petitioner medically unfit and that he is entitled for a declaration that

he is medically fit and that he has to be declared successful for

selection to the post of Constable (GD), CAPF (s).

10. The learned counsel for the respondents, Sh.Sandeep Khatri who

has appeared on advance notice has produced the result of the review

medical examination of the petitioner. Perusal of the same reveals that

it bears the signatures of the petitioner, as the result of review medical

examination was given to the petitioner. Therefore the plea of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the result of the review medical

examination was not given to the petitioner cannot be accepted in the

facts and circumstances. The plea that the prescription was issued by

the doctors of the Safdarjung Hospital diagnosing the petitioner as

suffering from "Vitiligo, lucodermoil patches over both lower limbs,

elbows and profuse" without examining him and prescribing only

medicines and treatment also cannot be accepted and it is an

afterthought.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to disclose

any cogent reasons as to why the petitioner after receiving the result of

the review medical examination which was counter signed by him in

token of receipt of the result had not produced the same and had not

disclosed the same in the writ petition. The petitioner in the facts and

circumstances has concealed the material facts declaring the petitioner

medically unfit in the review medical examination.

12. The findings of the medical board and review medical board

cannot be refuted by the petitioner on the basis of the admission form

with an endorsement by the Uttar Pradesh Police for the year 2009. No

malafide has been attributed by the petitioner against the respondents.

The petitioner though has contended that the doctors at the Safdarjung

Hospital had prescribed him medicine and treatment for Vitiligo,

however, it has not been alleged that the petitioner is not taking the

medicine prescribed and following the treatment advised to him.

13. This cannot be disputed that the medical board of the

respondents who examined the petitioner at the first instance declared

him medically unfit, which was substantiated by the review medical

board consisting of experts and the skin specialist. Their opinion has to

be given due weightage and value and such opinions of the medical

boards have to be given primacy over the medical opinion obtained by

the petitioner from the District Hospital, Bijnour.

14. It is also no more res integra that even when a different medical

opinion is available, the Court should be slow in interfering with the

opinion of the medical board and the review medical board of the

respondents and substituting its own opinion with the opinion of the

medical board.

15. In the totality of the facts and circumstances and the reasons

indicated hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitled for a declaration

that he is medically fit and consequently the petitioner is not entitled

for an order directing the respondents to select him for the post of

Constable (GD), CAPF (s) for the year 2011-12.

16. The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,

dismissed. The application of the petitioner seeking direction to the

respondents to keep one post vacant for the petitioner is also dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

January 16, 2012 „k‟