Mohan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2859 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Date of Decision: 01.05.2012

+              W.P.(C) No.1967/2012 & CM No.4243-4244/2012


Mohan Kumar                                    ...       Petitioner

                                Versus


Union of India & Ors.                           ...      Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :     Mr.Devvrat & Mr.Anoop Kumar, Advocates
For respondents :        Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Central Govt. Standing
                         Counsel & Mr.Amit Yadav, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to

constitute an Independent Medical Board for his medical examination

and has also sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner

to join the Indian Navy-01/2012 batch in case the petitioner is declared

fit.

2. The petitioner has contended that he is a young and bright

student, and that he is from a very humble background. The petitioner

had passed his Matriculation Examination in the year 2008 from the

BSEB, Patna by securing first division. The petitioner, thereafter,

passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 2010 from BSEB,

Patna by scoring 66% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 18th June, 2011 for enrollment as

MR/NMR 01/2012 batch in Indian Navy, the petitioner had applied for

the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a call up letter-cum-

admit card which was for examination scheduled for 4th October, 2011.

The petitioner had passed the written examination and had also cleared

the physical fitness test which was conducted thereafter. The result of

physical fitness test was declared on the same date and the petitioner

was declared successful.

3. The petitioner disclosed that his medical examination was

conducted on 5th October, 2011, and he was declared medically unfit by

the Naval Officer of West Bengal on the ground of having- i) Wax (Lt.)

Ear (QTU); ii) Hydrocele (Lt.) (QTU); iii) Elevated BP (150/90 MM/Hg)

(QTU) and iv) Tachycardia (QTU).

4. The petitioner has contended that he does not suffer from any of

the aforementioned problems and on the said grounds he could not

have been declared medically unfit. According to him, the declaration by

the Medical Board was recorded behind his back without proper

examination.

5. The petitioner contended that he got himself medically examined

at the Patna Medical College Hospital on 18th November, 2011 to

ascertain if he has hypertension (BP) and the report given by the Patna

Medical College Hospital recorded his BP as 120/78 MM/Hg.

6. The petitioner also got himself examined at the Govt. Hospital at

Ara, Bihar. The Govt. Hospital at Ara, Bihar also declared the petitioner

to be fit and fine and suffering from no disease or disability. The

petitioner also produced the Medical Certificated dated 8th December,

2011 issued by the Govt. Hospital at Ara, Bihar stipulating his fitness.

7. On the basis of the certificate issued by the Patna Medical College

Hospital and Govt. Hospital at Ara, Bihar, the petitioner contended that

the medical unfitness report dated 5th October, 2011 by the

respondents' Medical Board is not correct and it is, in fact, the outcome

of an improper medical checkup.

8. The petitioner contended that the results of the medical

examination conducted by the respondents, whereby he was declared

medically unfit will have a drastic impact over the future of the

petitioner and will deprive him of the better chance of service and will

have a demoralizing effect over his physical and mental fitness. In the

circumstances, the petitioner has contended that he is ready and

willing to undergo any kind of medical test to prove his medical fitness.

9. The petitioner also relied on a decision of this Court in Guddu

Prasad v. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) No.6151/2010, dated 24th

September, 2010 in which the Court was pleased to direct the

Commandant, Research and Referral Hospital, Delhi to constitute a

Medical Board of Specialist/Expert for examination of the candidate.

10. The petitioner, in the circumstances, has challenged the medical

examination done by the respondents on 5th October, 2011 on the

ground that the medical examination was not done properly and the

petitioner could not be declared unfit for enlistment into the Navy. The

petitioner's grievance is that the Medical Board recorded his parameters

behind his back without affording him any opportunity of being

medically examined. In any case, as per the petitioner, the certificates

issued by two independent Govt. Hospitals negate the findings of the

Medical Board of the respondents. The petitioner further contended that

the result of his medical examination was based on the improper

medical checkup and thus he deserves another opportunity.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.Ravinder Agarwal,

Central Govt. Standing Counsel, who appears on advanced notice has

contended emphatically that the petitioner has concealed material

information from this Court and has filed an incorrect affidavit along

with the writ petition contending that he has not concealed any material

information inasmuch as pursuant to the medical examination

conducted on 5th October, 2011, he was also communicated to report

for Review Medical Board after having himself treated for the medical

unfitness detailed in the report dated 5th October, 2011 at Command

Hospital, Kolkata within 21 days from 8th October, 2011.

12. Learned standing counsel contended that, in fact, the petitioner

appeared before the Review Medical Board where the review medical

examination was carried out on 17th October, 2011. In the Review

Medical Board, it was noticed that the petitioner does not have

Hydrocele as he got himself surgically fit. The petitioner was again

examined by the Review Medical Board on 21st October, 2011 for

hypertension at Kolkata Command Hospital, Medical Division and his

BP reading was found to be 150/86 mm/Hg, which was higher than

admissible limits.

13. Learned standing counsel contended that in the medical

examination conducted on 5th October, 2011, the petitioner's BP was

found to be 150/90 MM/Hg and in the review medical examination it

was found to be 150/86 MM/Hg on 21st October, 2011 and, therefore,

the petitioner was ultimately declared medically unfit on 24th October,

2011 even by the Review Medical Board.

14. Learned standing counsel has also contended that the plea of the

petitioner, in the circumstances, to have another Review Medical Board

for assessment of his medical fitness is not made out as the petitioner

has tried to portray that he had been examined by only one Medical

Board which had declared him medically unfit. Whereas, the fact is that

a Review Medical Board was also constituted which had examined the

petitioner on 17th October, 2011, 21st October, 2011 and 24th October,

2011, and, thereafter, declared him medically unfit on 24th October,

2011.

15. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. To the

query by this Court as to why the petitioner has not disclosed about the

Review Medical Board conducted by the respondents which had

examined the petitioner 17th October, 2011, 21st October, 2011 and had

declared the petitioner medically unfit again on 24th October, 2011, the

learned counsel for the petitioner has not given any satisfactory reply.

No cogent reasons, rather no reasons have been disclosed for

withholding the said information from this Court. It appears that it has

been done by the petitioner with a view to mislead this Court as the

petitioner's only prayer is to get him examined by a Review Medical

Board which Review Medical Board was constituted by the respondents

and the review medical board had examined the petitioner. Had the

petitioner disclosed that a Review Medical Board was already

constituted and that he was again examined by the Review Medical

Board, then his prayer seeking re-examination of the petitioner by

another Medical Board would not have survived. In the circumstances,

the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed for concealing

material information from this Court.

16. In any case, the prayer of the petitioner that he should be

examined by a Review Medical Board to ascertain his medical fitness is

to be rejected since the respondents had already constituted a Review

Medical Board which had again examined the petitioner on 17th

October, 2011, 21st October, 2011 and 24th October, 2011. The doctors,

who examined the petitioner on 17th October, 2011, 21st October, 2011

and 24th October, 2011, were different than those who had carried out

the medical examination of the petitioner on 5th October, 2011 and had

found him to be medically unfit on account of having hypertension,

hydrocele and tachycardia. The Review Medical Board found that the

problem of hydrocele had been got corrected by the petitioner surgically,

however, the petitioner still had elevated BP. The BP reading of the

petitioner in the Review Medical Board was found to be almost similar

to the reading recorded by the Medical Board held on 5th October, 2011,

which had declared the petitioner to be medically unfit. The petitioner

has been unsuccessful in establishing any ground for doubting the

findings of the Review Medical Board declaring the petitioner to be

medically unfit on 24th October, 2011.

17. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief

claimed in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, without any

merit and it is dismissed. All the pending applications are also disposed

of.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

MAY 01, 2012 `vk'