Delhi High Court
Ashwani vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 November, 2017
$~100.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8690/2017
ASHWANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 29.11.2017
1. The petitioner had applied for the post of Navik in March, 2017 in the
Indian Coast Guard service. He was called for his written, physical and
medical examinations and was placed on the merit-list as per the results
declared on 27.04.2017. After being provisionally selected for the post of
Navik, the petitioner was called upon to report for his medical examination
and commencement of training on 09.08.2017 at INS Chilika. The petitioner
reported at INS Chilika on the fixed date. However, he was declared unfit
during the medical examination on the ground that he was suffering from,
„Acute Otitis Media (L)‟, a condition wherein the middle part of the ear has
an inflammation, accompanied by some infection.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the petitioner had applied to the
respondents for a review by the Review Medical Board, which was also
conducted on the very same day and the findings returned by the Medical
Board were reiterated. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has
filed the present petition.
3. Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the petitioner states that within ten
days from the date of his examination, the petitioner had approached a
government hospital, at Delhi, namely, Safdarjung Hospital on 19.08.2017,
for his examination by a Senior ENT Specialist, who had observed that no
active ENT intervention was required. The said diagnosis report has been
filed with the petition as Annexure P-3. On the very same day, i.e., on
19.08.2017, the petitioner had also approached an ENT Specialist at another
government hospital in Delhi i.e., Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur,
wherein the same observations were made again.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after two tests were
conducted on the petitioner at INS Chilika, his medical tests conducted at
both, Safdarjung Hospital and Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital in Delhi, within
a span of ten days, reveal that he is medically fit and is not suffering from
any ear ailment, which requires any active ENT intervention and in such
circumstances, the petitioner be permitted to be re-examined by a Review
Medical Board.
5. Mr. Kanth, learned counsel for the respondents hands over a set of
documents relating to the petitioner's primary medical examination report,
his review medical examination report and refers to the relevant Coast
Guard Orders (CGO 26/2002) entitled "Medical Standards For Officers and
Enrolled Personnel of the Coast Guard", to state that there is no provision
for any further examination by a Review Medical Board and the petitioner
has already undergone two medical check-ups at INS Chilika on 09.08.2017
itself, wherein he was declared medically unfit. Learned counsel particularly
places reliance on para 5(b)(i) of the Coast Guard Orders bearing No.CGO
26/2002 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"5. Medical examination on Entry for Enrolled Personnel
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Appeal Medical Board.
(i) RMO will issue a review certificate (Annexure XI) to each of
the Temporary or permanently unfit candidates and advise
them to appeal against his findings if they so desire and appeal
for a medical examination at the affiliated Armed Forces
hospital within 21 days for candidates declared permanent unfit
and review within 42 days for those temporarily unfit."
6. On a perusal of the aforesaid clause, we are of the opinion that the
respondents ought to have waited for a reasonable time before conducting a
review of the medical condition of the petitioner, instead of doing it in such
a hurry on the very same day, as has been done in the present case. Further,
as per the diagnosis of the petitioner by ENT specialists of two government
hospitals in Delhi, there is no medical intervention required in his case.
7. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the
respondents to approach the R&R Hospital, Delhi, with a request that a
Review Medical Board be constituted in respect of the petitioner, relating to
the aforesaid condition. The petitioner shall be intimated in advance as to
the date and time when he would be required to present himself before the
Review Medical Board. The date of appointment shall be communicated to
the petitioner through his counsel within two weeks from today. The
respondents shall ensure that the petitioner's medical records are forwarded
to the Review Medical Board at R&R Hospital for perusal.
8. The Review Medical Board at R&R Hospital shall submit its report
directly to the respondents with a copy forwarded to the petitioner. Both the
parties shall be bound by the report of the R&R Hospital, which shall be
treated as final.
9. It is directed that if the Review Medical Board declares the petitioner
as medically fit, then the respondents shall take steps to issue him an order
of appointment within a maximum period of two weeks therefrom and the
petitioner will be called to join the training as expeditiously as possible.
10. Before parting with the case, it is clarified that the aforesaid order has
been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and
shall not be treated as a precedent in any other matter.
11. The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2017
rkb/av
