Durga Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3575 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                       Date of Decision: 29.05.2012

+                       W.P.(C) No.3391/2012

Durga Singh                                     ...      Petitioner

                                versus

Union of India & Ors.                           ...      Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner      :     Mr.R.K.Saini & Mr.Vikram Saini,
                              Advocates
For Respondents         :     Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate

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

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the action on the part

of the respondents declining to conduct a Review Medical Board/

examination of the petitioner after the appeal was filed by him against

the decision of the medical Board declaring him medically unfit on

account of the petitioner having 'Leukodermia', a cutaneous condition,

an acquired condition with localized loss of pigmentation of the skin

that may occur after any number of inflammatory skin conditions,

burns, intralesional steroid injections, postdermabrasion. He has also

sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold a Review

Medical Board/examination and if found fit to appoint him to the

appropriate post.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the disputes raised by the petitioner

are that the petitioner had applied for recruitment as Head Constable

(Min.) in the Border Security Force in response to letter dated October,

2011 issued by the Commandant, 25th Bn., BSF, Chhawla Camp, New

Delhi.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the medical examination

on 28th November, 2011 in which he was declared medically unfit on

the ground of having 'Leucoderma' and he was issued a memorandum

dated 28th November, 2011. Memorandum dated 28th November, 2011

conveyed to the petitioner reason for his medical unfitness on account

of having Leucoderma. The petitioner was also given an option to file an

appeal within a period of 15 days after obtaining the requisite medical

fitness certificate from a medical practitioner (specialist in concerned

field) that the diagnosis of the petitioner having 'Leucoderma' is on

account of error of judgment.

4. According to the petitioner, he obtained a medical fitness

certificate from a medical practitioner who had examined the petitioner

at PGIMER, R.M.L Hospital, New Delhi on 1st December, 2011. In the

said certificate though the medical specialist opined that Leucoderma in

the case of the petitioner appears to be on account of an error of

judgment, however, after examining him it was also stipulated by the

medical specialist that the petitioner is having Linecur stable vitiligo

over side of chest disease, which is a localized change. Vitiligo is a skin

condition in which there is a loss of brown color (pigment) from areas of

skin, resulting in irregular white patches that feel like normal skin.

5. The plea of the petitioner is that though he had submitted his

request for a Review Medical Board with the specialist certificate,

however, his request for the Review appeal Medical Board was declined

on the ground that the medical certificate issued by Civil Medical

Practitioner did not indicate that the decision of the BSF Medical Board

diagnosing the petitioner having Leucoderma was on account of error of

judgment. The petitioner has contended that the mere perusal of the

medical fitness certificate obtained by the petitioner negates the plea

taken by the respondent that the medical certificate was not given in

accordance with the proforma, because the medical certificate in

question clearly stipulated that the 'Leucoderma' as has been opined by

the Medical Board was on account of an error of judgment.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance

notice has refuted the pleas and contentions of the petitioner. The

learned counsel has pointed out the rejection letter dated 4th April,

2012 categorically stipulated that the appeal is available only against a

possible error of judgment. He contended that that by mere recording

an opinion that the 'Leucoderma' was on account of error of judgment is

sufficient for the petitioner to claim a review medical examination as the

certificate produced by the petitioner itself disclosed that the petitioner

suffers from a skin disease, Linecur stable vitiligo which makes the

petitioner medically unfit. In the circumstances, it is contended that

though the certificate of specialist produced by the petitioner though

stated that there was an error of judgment in opining that the petitioner

suffer from 'Leucoderma', however the certificate produced by the

petitioner itself endorses that the petitioner is suffering from another

similar skin disease, Vitiligo in which there is a loss of brown color

(pigment) from areas of skin, resulting in irregular white patches that

feel like normal skin. If the petitioner's certificate stipulates that the

petitioner is suffering from another type of `skin disease', the petitioner

cannot claim that he should be subject to Review Medical Board in

order to ascertain his medical fitness as even according to the medical

certificate produced by him, he has skin disease which makes him

medically unfit.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is

not disputed that the petitioner produced a medical certificate wherein

it is stipulated that the Leucoderma as opined by the Medical Board of

the respondent was on account of an error of judgment, however, the

same medical certificate also stipulates that the petitioner is suffering

from another skin disease. Though the petitioner's certificate does

qualify the Vitiligo as localized, however, even such a localized Linecur

stable vitiligo over side of chest disease does not make the petitioner

medically fit according to the respondent's standards. The learned

counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that a person having

Linecur stable vitiligo over side of chest disease, a localized disease

which is a form of skin disease will be medically fit. If the certificate

obtained by the petitioner from the specialist opines that the petitioner

is suffering from skin disease, then the petitioner cannot claim that he

should be medically examined by a `Review Medical Board' to ascertain

his medical fitness as his own certificate shows that he is medically

unfit.

8. For these reasons stated hereinbefore and in the totality of facts

and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the decision

of the respondents holding the petitioner to be medically unfit for the

post of Head Constable (Min.) in BSF and declining to hold a Review

Medical Board. The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances, is

without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J MAY 29, 2012 'k'