Rahul Chauhan vs Union Of India & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2689 Del

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 2689 Del
Judgement Date : 26 May, 2017

Delhi High Court

Rahul Chauhan vs Union Of India & Anr. on 26 May, 2017

$~12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         W.P.(C) 905/2017
                                        Date of decision: 26th May, 2017

        RAHUL CHAUHAN                                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through             Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate.

                          versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                  ..... Respondent
                      Through  Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate for Ms.
                      Monika Arora, Central Government Standing
                      Counsel.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner-Rahul Chauhan had applied for selection as Constable

(General Duty) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) for the year 2015-16 under

the sports quota.

2. Vide opinion of the Medical Board dated 25th October, 2016, the

petitioner was declared medically unfit for not meeting the prescribed visual

standard. Copy of the memorandum of the Medical Board is not on record.

However, it is accepted that the petitioner was declared unfit for the reason

that he had poor distant vision (6/24 right eye).

3. The petitioner applied for review vide application dated 8th

November, 2016 and was examined by the Review Medical Board on 12 th

January, 2017. The review medical examination proforma has been placed

on record at page 34. The petitioner has made certain allegations against the

doctors who had examined him, but in the absence of cogent and reliable

evidence, we would refrain from expressing any opinion.

4. The review medical examination proforma records that the petitioner

was not willing for investigation. There is another noting in the handwriting

and with the signature of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner acknowledges

having undergone a refractive surgery of the right eye (Lasik). The

petitioner was declared unfit due to refractive surgery of the right eye.

Another noting on the proforma records that individual i.e. the petitioner

was willing for investigation. These notings are dated 12th January, 2017.

5. The affidavit filed by the respondents states that the petitioner was

thereupon examined at M.D. Eye Care and Laser Centre on 13th January,

2017 and the following remarks were recorded:-

"ÄSOCT AND PENTACAM SUGGESTIVE OF LASIK SURGERY RT. EYE"

The above remarks affirm the decision/opinion of the Review Medical

Board taken on 12th January, 2017.

6. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner had undergone

the refractive surgery of the right eye (Lasik).

7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner

should not be treated as unfit for he has undergone the said refractive eye

surgery. Our attention is drawn to the advertisement, pursuant to which the

petitioner had applied.

8. The advertisement under the heading "detailed medical examination"

and "eye sight" had stated as under:-

IV) DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION:- The candidate who qualify in the Physical Standard Test will be put through for Detailed Medical Examination. The Medical Standards is as under:-

(a) EYE SIGHT - Visual standards is as under:-

Visual Acuity Uncorrected Refraction Color Remarks Vision Better Worse Better Worse Eye Eye Eye Eye N6 N9 6/6 6/9 Visual CP III Binocular Correction BY vision is of any kind ISIHARA required is not permitted even by glasses

9. A note in the said advertisement indicated that the candidates would

be examined as per the Revised Medical Guidelines May, 2015 issued by the

Ministry of Home Affairs. For the sake of convenience, we would like to

reproduce the note, which reads:-

"NOTE: - The candidates will be examined as per

the Revised Medical Guidelines May, 2015 issued by the MHA."

10. The Revised Medical Guidelines, 2015 have been placed on record by

the respondents. As per the said guidelines, the visual standards prescribed

for distant vision is between 6/6-6/9. This should be the uncorrected visual

acuity. Further, visual correction of any kind is not permitted even by

glasses. There is also a stipulation with regard to refractive surgeries,

wherein it is stated:-

"Refractive Surgeries: Candidates who have undergone LASIK (LASER In Situ Keratomileusis) may be considered fit for recruitment for the post of Direct Entry Gazetted Officers."

A reading of the aforesaid stipulation would show that the candidates

who have undergone Lasik (Laser) surgery are considered fit for recruitment

to the post of direct entry gazetted officers. The petitioner had applied for

the post of Constable (General Duty), which is a non-gazetted post.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the guidelines placed on

record relate to Central Armed Police Force, National Security Guards and

Assam Rifles, and would not be applicable to SSB. We are unable to agree

with the said contention, for the said organization is also like the Central

Armed Police Force. It is quite clear from the advertisement and the note

that the respondents had followed the guidelines issued by the Ministry of

Home Affairs.

12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ