Delhi High Court
Akash Tyagi vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 October, 2016
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:18th October, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 8338/2016
AKASH TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satya Saharawat, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC along with
Mr. Brajesh Kumar, G.P for
respnondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
INDIRA BANERJEE, J (ORAL)
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the findings of the
Appeal Medical Board and Review Medical Board declaring the petitioner
medically unfit for appointment in the Indian Army on Short Service
Commission. The petitioner has also also sought orders directing the
respondents to constitute a Review Medical Board comprising specialist
dermatologist from All India Institute of Medical Sciences or Vardhman
Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, to review the medical
fitness of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner applied pursuant to an advertisement posted by the
Indian Army inviting applications from Male Engineering Graduates for
grant of Short Service Commission in the Indian Army in all Arms/Services,
for which the pre-commission training course was to commence in October
2016 at the Officers' Training Academy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
3. The petitioner's application was shortlisted and a letter dated
20.04.2016 was sent to the petitioner thorugh his email on 20.04.2016 itself,
asking him to appear for an interview before the Service Selection Board
(SSB) at Jalandhar, Punjab.
4. According to the petitioner, tests were conducted in two stages and
the petitioner successfully cleared both the stages, after which, the petitioner
was asked to report before the Special Medical Board (SMB) for medical
examination. The first medical examination before the Special Medical
Board took place in Jalandhar between 23.05.2016 and 28.05.2016. The
petitioner was declared medically unfit as the petitioner was found by the
Special Medical Board, to be suffering from Vitiligo.
5. The petitioner appealed, against the disqualification, after which, an
Appeal Medical Board was constituted at the Base Hospital in Delhi on
05.07.2016.
6. The petitioner was examined. On examination, the petitioner was
again found unfit for the same ailment. Thereafter, at the request of the
petitioner, a Review Medical Board was constituted in Pune at the Armed
Forces Medical College. The petitioner was again declared unfit.
7. Relying on medical reports and/or prescriptions of the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, the VMMC and Safdarjung Hosptial and BPS
Government Medical College for Women at Sonipat, Haryana, the petitioner
contends that the petitioner has wrongfully been disqualified.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the
petitioner has been disqualified medically only on the basis of visual
examination and that no diagnostic tests were conducted as has been done in
the hospitals referred to above, reports whereof have been relied upon by the
petitioner.
9. On behalf of the respondents, the qualified dermatologist submits that
a wood slump test was conducted and the petitioner was clinically examined
and found to suffer from Vitiligo. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner disputes that wood slump test was conducted.
10. Unfortunately, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court does not adjudicate disputed questions of fact as to whether
wood slump test was conducted or not. This Court has to proceed on the
basis of available records.
11. The records of the medical examinations of the petitioner have been
produced before this Court. As observed above, the petitioner was examined
by qualified specialist in Medicine at Jalandhar and he diagnosed the
petitioner to be suffering from Vitiligo and declared him unfit. Thereafter,
an Appeal Medical Board was constituted at the Base Hospital in Delhi.
12. Before the Appeal Medical Board, the petitioner was examined by a
dermatologist who also found him to suffer from Vitiligo. The findings of
the dermatologist were confirmed by the Medical Board of three doctors.
After the examination before the Appeal Medical Board, a Review Medical
Board was held at the Armed Forces Medical College at Pune. The
petitioner was examined by an associated supervisor of dermatology who
also found the petitioner to be suffering from Vitiligo and declared him unfit
for appointment. The findings were confirmed by the Medical Board
comprising three doctors of the Armed Forces Medical College at Pune. The
Approving Authority being the Director General of the Armed Forces
Medical Colleges approved the aforesaid findings of the Review Medical
Board.
13. The respondents have produced before us medical literature to
substantiate their contention that Vitiligo would render a candidate unfit for
service in the Armed Forces and also to substantiate their contention that
Vitiligo can be diagnosed by clinical examination.
14. From the medical literature produced before us, it appears that
Vitiligo is characterised by progressive autoimmune-mediated destruction of
epidermal melanocytes which inter alia increases the risk of other
autoimmune diseases with unpredictable evolution and unsatisfactory
therapeutic outcomes.
15. It is not for this Court exercising its extraordinary wirt jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to examine the correctness of
medical literature or the medical reports of specialists.
16. Considering that different doctors at different places have diagnosed
the petitioner with Vitiligo and having regard to the symptoms of Vitiligo
explained to us, with reference to medical literature, we are of the view that
our interference with the disqualification is not called for.
17. The three prescriptions/reports of the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital and BPS Government Medical
College for Women, Sonipat, Haryana, relied upon by the petitioner do not
conclusively rule out the finding of the Medical Boards that the petitioner is
afflicted with Vitiligo. On the other hand, the medical prescriptions/reports
of AIIMS suggests the possibilitiy that the petitioner may be suffering from
Vitiligo. The medical prescription/report of Safdarjung Hospital indicates
that the petitioner had been undergoing treatment. The concerned doctors of
the two hospitals only opined that the disease was non-contagious and non-
progressive. Similarly, the BPS Government Medical College for Women
also opined that the disease was non-contagious and not a progressive
disease.
18. The fact remains that the correctness of the diagnosis of Vitiligo has
not conclusively been ruled out by any of the medical reports. It is also not
in dispute that the petitioner's father and grand father had the same
condition.
19. The petitioner has contended that he has not been diagnosed of
Vitiligo by any of the reputed hospitals named above. On behalf of the
respondents, it is asserted that the condition is Vitiligo. As observed above,
the three prescriptions or at least the prescription of All India Insitute of
Medical Sciences does not rule out Vitiligo.
20. It is not possible for this Court to decide whether the petitioner is
actually suffering from Vitiligo or not. May be, he is not suffering from
Vitiligo as contended by him. However, in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, we cannot interefere having regard to three
different reports of doctors of Jalandhar, Delhi and Armed Forces Medical
College, Pune declaring the petitioner unfit and more so, when there is no
specific certification by any doctor certifying that the petitioner is not
suffering from Vitiligo. There is no reason to refer to the petitioner to any
other Medical Board and more so, in the absence of any materials to show
that the opinion of three Medical Boards was not correct. It is not for this
Court to make a comparative analysis of the medical opinion of different
doctors and determine which is correct. In any case, the petitioner cannot
insist on constitution of a Medical Board of his choice. As observed above,
the Review Medical Board constituted on the request of the petitioner,
comprising well qualified doctors of the reputed Armed Forces Medical
College, Pune declared the petitioner medically unfit.
21. Writ petition is, therefore, not entertained and the same is rejected.
CM No. 34606/2016 (stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 18, 2016/rs
