Delhi High Court
Ct/Cd Rambabu Chandrawanshi vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 September, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4765/2015
Date of decision: 7th September, 2017.
CT/CD RAMBABU CHANDRAWANSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.L. Bareja, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC and
Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
Sanjiv Khanna J: (ORAL)
Constable Rambabu Chandrawanshi had applied for selection
and appointment as Head Constable/General Duty through Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination, 2013.
2. Having qualified the written test, physical efficiency test, and
physical standard test, he had appeared for medical examination
before the Recruiting Medical Officer on 16th February, 2014 at
Bilaspur on 27th February, 2014. He was declared unfit for 'Left Sided
Inguinal Hernia', 11 degree Haemorrhoid at 3'O clock position and
CH Skin disease.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained a medical certificate
from a medical practitioner and doctor dated 5th March, 2014 who had
opined that no hernia could be seen or detected in the clinical
examination and as per sonography. Similarly, Haemorrhoid could not
be seen in Complete Proctoscopy of the patient. Negative opinion was
given in respect of the skin disease.
4. The petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid opinion was
examined by the Review Medical Board which was constituted to
consider review cases. Review Medical Board had carried out detailed
medical examination, from 28th April, 2014 to 3rd May, 2014.
5. The respondents have produced before us the papers to show
that the Review Medical Board had declared the petitioner as unfit for
the reason that he had 'Left Sided Inguinal Hernia'.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner,
on instructions from the petitioner, has accepted that the petitioner was
operated for hernia.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that he was declared
medically fit in the annual medical examination held on 8th September,
2014 and in the medical examination held in October, 2014 when the
petitioner was medically examined for appointment of the rank of
Sub-Inspector/General Duty through LDCE-2014.
8. On the last date of hearing, we had asked the counsel for the
respondents to examine the said aspects. Counsel for the respondents
has produced before us the annual medical reports dated 22nd October,
2013 and 8th September, 2014. As per the said reports, the petitioner
was declared medically fit in SHAPE-I.
9. In spite of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to accept
the prayer of the petitioner, for setting aside the finding recorded by
the Review Medical Board held between 28th April, 2014 to 2nd May,
2014 (sic. 3rd May, 2014) and the letter dated 27th February, 2014
issued by the Recruiting Medical Officer and for declaring him to be
in medical category SHAPE-I or to constitute an independent medical
board.
10. The reason is that the petitioner was examined by Review
Medical Board and found to be suffering from hernia. This opinion
affirmed the finding of the Recruiting Medical Officer. The petitioner
has accepted that he was operated for hernia, and thus accepts medical
intervention for the said ailment.
11. It is submitted the said operation was done not because the
petitioner was suffering from the said disease, but because the
petitioner wanted to meet the objections. It is difficult to accept the
said position. Operation and surgical procedures are not undertaken,
without any medical reason. They are undertaken by specialists and
are not on mere request when not required.
12. As per the Standing Order No.5/2011 dated 22nd July, 2011, the
applicant should be in Medical category SHAPE-I when they apply.
The candidates who clear the written examination, meet the physical
measurements, qualify the physical efficiency test, and after checking
of testimonial were subjected to a detailed medical examination at
Stage -V. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid standing order reads
as under:-
Stage-V: Medical Examination
Detailed Medical examination of those
candidates who come out successful in the written,
PST, PET and Scrutiny of testimonials / records will be
conducted as per existing guidelines in the force. Each
candidates will be declared either fit or unfit and no
one will be categorized "Temporarily unfit".
Candidates who are declared unfit in the
medical examination will be given opportunity to
prefer appeal within 15 days of rejection by medical
board. Such appeals are to be addressed to the
concerned IG of the Sector conduction HC/GD-LDCE.
The procedure for conducting review medical board
shall be completed well before the final result of HC-
LDCE is announced. The review medical board for
assessing suitability of the candidates preferring
appeal will be constituted by the Director (Medical).
The review medical board will consist of three Group
„A‟ Medical officers of the discipline of physician,
surgeon and Ophthalmogist. The senior most medical
officer will function as the Presiding officer of the
review medical board.
Pregnancy at the time of PET will be
disqualification and pregnant female candidate can be
rejected at that time only. However, if any such women
candidates who as a result of tests and the time of
medical examination is found to be pregnant of 12
weeks standing or over shall be declared temporary
unfit and her appointment will be held in abeyance
until the confinement is over.
13. In the present case, the petitioner was not only to be in SHAPE-
I at the time when he had submitted the application, but he should
have been fit on the date of the medical examination at stage -V.
Temporarily unfit candidates cannot be considered as fit. On the said
date/period when the petitioner was examined by the Recruiting
Medical Officer and the Review Medical Board, he was unfit. The fact
that the petitioner was earlier and later fit and in SHAPE-I is
immaterial.
14. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in
the present petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017/P
