Delhi High Court
Shri Rohit Solanki vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13 February, 2018
$~34.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1363/2018
SHRI ROHIT SOLANKI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with
Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
% 13.02.2018
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2016, passed by
the Director MS (PS) for the DGMS (Army) informing his father that the
petitioner's candidature for the post of a Technical Graduate in the Indian
Military Academy had been turned down on the ground that there was
evidence of „Pulmonary Koch‟s‟ in his left lung. The observations made in
para 3 of the letter dated 23.12.2016, are reproduced herein below:-
" 3. The candidate has been subjected to a Review Medical
Board wherein he was examined by Consultant & HOD,
Respiratory Medicine at Army Hosp. (R&R), Delhi Cantt. and
declared unfit due to evidence of Pulmonary Koch‟s in Left Lung,
as per provisions contained in letter No. 76054/Policy/DGMS-
5(A) dt. 22 Dec 2000. Though the specialist of Sardar Vallab
Bahi Patel chest institute has declared him fit for all activities for
normal human being as per statement, it is emphasized that
military training and duties require a very high level of medical
fitness and endurance beyond civil life, so that candidate is fit to
perform military duties in all terrain and extremes of climate
without absenting himself due to illness. Given this requirement,
any evidence of old Pulmonary Tuberculosis renders an
individual medially unfit for recruitment/commissioning into
military service."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in February, 2016, the
petitioner had applied to the Service Selection Board for considering his
candidature in the Indian Army. He was declared medically unfit in May,
2015. After being declared medical unfit, the petitioner had on his own
undergone an examination at the Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi
University, Delhi. A copy of the report of the Institute is enclosed at page
no. 21 of the writ petition.
3. Armed with the said report, the petitioner had approached the
respondents with a request for convening a Review Medical Board. The said
request was acceded to and the Review Medical Board had examined the
petitioner and again found him unfit in terms of the letter dated 23.12.2016.
Thereafter, the petitioner underwent a CT Scan of his chest at Focus
Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi that gave an opinion as
follows:-
"Multiple fibroatelectatic bands with calcific nodules and
resultant Mosaic attenuation seen involving apicoposterior
segment of left upper lobe and superior segment of left lower lobe.
Likely sequelae to previous infective etiology.
No obvious consolidation or tree-in-bud appearance seen and no
obvious mediastinal lymphadenopathy or pleural effusion to
suggest any disease activity.
ADVISE: CLINICAL CORRELATION."
4. It is the version of the petitioner that he was referred to Focus
Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. by a Doctor at AIIMS Hospital, but
there is no document placed on record to bear out the said submission.
Subsequently, a Doctor in the Department of Medicine at AIIMS
Hospital gave a report dated 22.12.2017, stating inter alia that the
petitioner is in "usual state of health and old infection in his chest should
not affect his physical activity significantly in future."
5. In the first instance, we have called upon learned counsel for the
petitioner to explain the delay in approaching the Court for relief when
the Review Medical Board had found the petitioner as medically unfit as
long back as on 23.12.2016 and there is no explanation offered in the
petition for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has
nothing to state on the aspect of delay.
6. Coming next to the merits of the matter. We have already
extracted hereinabove the observations of the Focus Imaging & Research
Centre Pvt. Ltd., where the petitioner had undergone a CT scan of his
chest as also the observations of the Doctor at AIIMS Hospital and the
Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi University, Delhi that clearly
bear out the observations made out in the impugned letter dated
23.12.2016 that there is some evidence of 'Pulmonary Koch‟s‟ in the left
lung of the petitioner due to a past history of ill health. This being the
position, we do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the observations
made by the respondents in the letter impugned herein that a candidate is
required to have very high level of medical fitness and endurance beyond
civil life to enable him to perform military duties in all extremities of
weather, without succumbing to any illness.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, not only on the ground of
unexplained delay and laches in approaching the Court, but also on
merits.
HIMA KOHLI, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
ap/na
