Delhi High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 September, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8005/2016
Date of decision: 26th September, 2017
PRADEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhijat and Mr. Harshvardhan
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar, was declared medically unfit on
account of sub-standard vision and, therefore, denied selection and
appointment as Constable in the Railway Protection Force.
2. Pradeep Kumar pursuant to directions issued in W.P. (C) No.
7469/2014 vide order dated 16th December, 2014 was examined by the
Review Medical Board.
3. The Review Medical Board, to ascertain whether the petitioner
had undergone any refractive surgery had referred him to Guru Nanak
Eye Centre, Delhi and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New
Delhi. The petitioner was declared fit on the said account.
W.P. (C) No. 8005/2016 Page 1 of 4
4. The petitioner, however, was declared unfit by the Review
Medical Board on account of hypertension and cardiac systolic
murmur.
5. The petitioner contests the said findings of the Review Medical
Board as incorrect. He relies on the Echo Cardiogram report dated
16th December, 2015 of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Sciences, Rohtak and Echo Cardiogram report dated 19th September,
2016 by the Department of Cardiology, Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi. It is submitted that another medical board should be constituted
to examine the petitioner and ascertain the findings recorded by the
Review Medical Board. Our attention is drawn to the judgment dated
23rd February, 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1655/2015, Krishan
Kumar versus Union of India and Others.
6. In Krishan Kumar (supra), the petitioner was declared unfit on
account of sub-standard vision in left eye. Thereafter, Krishan Kumar
had got himself examined by an Ophthalmologist at All India Institute
of Medical Sciences who had opined that he had perfect vision (6/6) in
both eyes. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court had directed that
Krishan Kumar should be examined by a Board of Ophthalmologists
at the Army Hospital (Research and Referral), New Delhi, who shall
submit their report to the Director General of Railway Protection
Force. The Division Bench of the High Court had observed as under:-
"5. We need not catalogue over 50 orders passed by
this Court emphasizing that whenever a person is medically
examined for purposes of being offered appointment to a
public post and is opined to be unfit, a reference needs to be
W.P. (C) No. 8005/2016 Page 2 of 4
made to the medical standard at which the person was
evaluated followed by clearly listing in what manner the
medical standard was not achieved, for then alone can the
person obtain an opinion from a third doctor, and if an
opinion to the contrary is obtained, it must likewise contain
the reasons so that at the Review Medical Board the benefit
of the two prior reasons is with the Medical Board,
warranting the Review Medical Board to author an opinion
keeping in view the two earlier opinions."
7. When we turn to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that
the petitioner for the purpose of review medical examination was
admitted to the Divisional Hospital, Northern Railway, Delhi on 7th
November, 2015 and was there till 13th November, 2015. The 2-D
Echo Cardiogram report of the petitioner records abnormalities. The
respondents have also enclosed blood pressure chart of the petitioner,
which would indicate reading as high as 190/96, 189/95 and 188/94 on
some occasions.
8. In the facts of the present case, we do not think that the opinion
of the Review Medical Board of three doctors, namely, Special
Medical Officer, Initial Medical Examiner, Senior Medical Officer is
questionable, as evaluation and opinion were after following the
proper procedure. The report given by the three doctors was accepted
by the Chief Medical Superintendant as the accepting authority.
9. In these circumstances, reliance placed by the petitioner on the
decision in the case of Krishan Kumar (supra) would not be apposite
and in fact would support the stand of the respondents.
10. We have also examined the report of Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Sciences, Rohtak dated 16th December, 2015 and Safdrajung
W.P. (C) No. 8005/2016 Page 3 of 4
Hospital dated 19th September, 2016, but do not think they would tilt
the balance in favour of the petitioner. The Echo Cardiograph report
of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak records
different parameters and has opined on aspects. The report of the
Safdarjung Hospital on the question of diagnoses records a question
mark. The two reports do not refer to the blood pressure readings of
the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Northern Railway,
Central Hospital New Delhi refer to Traces TR. It may be relevant to
state here that the petitioner had undergone 2-D Echo at the Northern
Railway, Central Hospital.
11. We also do not find any merit in the contention that reference to
another Medical Board is justified because the Review Medical Board
for the first time on the basis of 2D Echo Cardiogram report had
opined and observed Traces of TR. This cannot be a reason and
ground to refer or direct evaluation by another Medical Board.
12. In view of the aforesaid position, we would go by the report
given by the Review Medical Board and do not see any reason to
accept the prayer of the petitioner to make another reference.
13. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 MR/NA
