Delhi High Court
Ravinder Sharma vs Border Security Force, Director ... on 8 August, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 726/2013 & CM No. 1401/2013
Reserved on: 18th July,2017
Date of decision : 8th August, 2017
RAVINDER SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
versus
BORDER SECURITY FORCE,
DIRECTOR GENERAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv. for
R-1/UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying
for the reliefs mentioned in prayer clause (iii) and (iv) of the present
petition. The prayers are adumbrated below:-
"(iii) To direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider
and appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector
(JE-Civil) BSF; and
(iv) To direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to accord
seniority with effect from the date on which person of
his batch recruited against the post of Sub-Inspector
(JE-Civil) BSF advertised in the year 2012."
WP(C) 726/2013 Page 1
2. The petitioner had applied for recruitment as Sub-Inspector (JE-
Civil) in the Border Security Force. Having cleared the written
examination and second phase of selection process, he was called for
medical examination on 3rd November, 2012 where he was declared
unfit vide Memorandum dated 3rd November, 2012 on the ground of
his suffering from Knock Knee and Leucoderma at left side of chest
extended upto same side of back plus upper arm.
3. The petitioner had thereafter approached PGIMER, Chandigarh
where he was examined by a Specialist and it was opined that the
finding recorded by the Medical Officer in BSF declaring the
petitioner as unfit on account of leucoderma was an error of judgment.
The petitioner was opined as medically fit for the said post. The
certificate records that the "stable vitligo had no physical morbidity
associated." Medical Fitness Certificate dated 6th November, 2012 in
this regard had been placed on record.
4. The petitioner thereafter, got himself examined at AIIMS for
Knock Knee and Leucoderma and claims that he was declared fit. The
petitioner has filed certain OPD certificates dated 8th November, 2012
on record in this regard.
WP(C) 726/2013 Page 2
5. The petitioner has further relied upon a medical fitness
certificate dated 15th November, 2012, issued by the General Hospital,
Rewari, Rajasthan, opining that he was fit for the post of Sub
Inspector (JE - Civil), and also stating that the opinion of the Medical
Board of Border Security Force that the petitioner was unfit due to
Knock Knee was an error of judgment.
6. Armed with these certificates, the petitioner had applied for
Review Medical Board. The respondents issued a list of candidates
eligible to appear before the Medical Board for re-examination on 15th
January, 2013 that did not contain the name of the petitioner, forcing
the petitioner to file the present petition.
7. The respondents contesting the said petition have asserted that
this was not a case of error of judgment and, therefore, request for
Review Medical Board was rightly declined in spite of the aforesaid
medical certificates. The respondents have also placed before us a
handbook on Medical Examination. It states that ordinarily there
would be no right to appeal against finding of Medical Authority but if
the Government/Department is satisfied, on evidence placed before
them, that there is a possibility of error of judgment in the decision of
WP(C) 726/2013 Page 3
the Medical Authority, it can allow re-examination by the Review
Medical Board.
8. This Court, under similar circumstances, by an order dated 18th
July, 2017 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 3391/2012 titled Durga
Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., has held that the word "possibility"
in the hand book cannot be ignored and deserves significance.
9. In view of the certificates from PGIMER, Chandigarh, AIIMS
and General Hospital, Rewari, Rajasthan, it would be erroneous and
premature, to opine and give a final decision without medical
examination by the expert doctors of the Review Medical Board. The
certificates and conflicting opinion by doctors cannot be discarded on
any presumption. The petitioner, therefore, could not have been denied
an opportunity to be re-examined by a Review Medical Board. It is for
the respondents, through the Review Medical Board, to form an
opinion whether or not the petitioner suffers from any medical
condition for which he could be declared as unfit.
10. In view of the above, we allow the present petition and direct
the respondents to constitute a Review Medical Board for examination
of the petitioner.
WP(C) 726/2013 Page 4
11. In view of the lapse of time, it will be open for the respondents
to completely re-examine the medical fitness of the petitioner, if it is
permitted or mandated as per law. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has consented to the same. The aforesaid exercise would be
completed within three months from the date copy of this order is
received. If on such re-examination, the petitioner is found fit for
appointment, he shall be appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector (JE-
Civil) in Border Security Force with immediate effect.
12. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed with no
order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SANJIV KHANNA, J
AUGUST 8th , 2017
sd
WP(C) 726/2013 Page 5
