Delhi High Court
Dheer Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 January, 2018
$~13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6641/2017 and CM APPL. 27599/2017
DHEER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. Feroz Khan, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 23.01.2018
1. The petitioner assails an order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the
respondent No.3/CISF, rejecting his application for a re-medical
examination on being disqualified for medical reasons during the process of
recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in CISF 2016
Examination. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 21.04.2017
passed by the respondent No.2/SSC, declaring him unfit for recruitment to
the post of SI in the CISF on 21.04.2017, on account of suffering from (i)
low near eye, (ii) tachycardia, (iii) hypertension and (iv) tremors.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as gathered from the records are
that on 09.01.2016, the respondent No.2/SSC had issued an advertisement
for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in the
CISF. The petitioner had participated in a written test (Tier-I) on
05.06.2016. On 18.12.2016, the petitioner was called by the respondents to
undergo a physical endurance test (PET). On qualifying the said test, the
petitioner was called for a Tier-II examination on 14.09.2016. On
21.04.2017, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination at the
Composite Hospital, BSF, Jodhpur and was declared unfit on the ground that
he was suffering from (i) low near eye, (ii) tachycardia, (iii) hypertension
and (iv) tremors. (Annexure P-2).
3. The petitioner submitted a Medical Fitness Certificate dated
22.04.2017 after appearing before a doctor at the Government Hospital at
Jodhpur, who cleared him of the first ailment, namely, low near eye vision.
The said fitness certificate also recorded that the petitioner had undergone an
ECG twice, his pulse rate was regular and no tremors were detected. Armed
with the said Certificate, the petitioner submitted an application to the
respondents for a Review Medical Examination, which was conducted at the
Composite Hospital, CRPF Camp, Jharoda Kalan on 12.07.2017. As per the
report of the Review Medical Board, the petitioner was found fit from the
'eye side' and no tremors were observed. However, he was declared unfit
on the other two counts, i.e., (i) Tachycardia and (ii) Hypertension.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had got himself
examined at the Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi on 21.07.2017 and at the RML
Hospital, Delhi on 27.07.2017 and both the Govt. Hospitals had given
reports in his favour. He refers to the view taken by the Doctors as recorded
in the Out Patient Cards issued to the petitioner by both the Hospitals to
contend that he had been thoroughly examined and was found fit in all
respects. When the said reports were submitted by the petitioner to the
respondent No.3/CISF under cover of letter dated Nil requesting for a re-
examination (Annexure P-8), the said request was turned down by the
respondent No.3/CISF vide letter dated 18.07.2017 stating inter alia that
another review medical examination could not be conducted in the light of
the instructions issued in the Employment Notice dated 09.01.2016.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the initial medical
examination conducted by the respondents, they had arbitrarily declared the
petitioner unfit on four grounds, which were reduced to two grounds by the
Review Medical Board. He contends that in view of the independent
opinions obtained by the petitioner from two Government Hospitals, he
may be permitted to appear before the R&R Army Hospital, New Delhi, for
a re-examination.
6. A counter affidavit in opposition to the present petition has been filed
by the respondents. Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the advertisement published by the respondent
No.2/SSC in respect of the recruitment had clearly stated in Note 3 that the
decision of the Review Medical Board is final and no appeal shall be
entertained thereafter. He states that the petitioner has exhausted all the
remedies available to him and the respondents cannot be called upon to have
him re-examined in the Army R&R Hospital, particularly, when the Review
Medical Board that had re-examined him comprised of senior and
experienced Medical Officers including specialists in their respective fields.
7. We have heard the counsels for the parties and examined the records.
We are of the opinion that having regard to the fact that the petitioner was
subsequently examined by doctors at two Government Hospitals in Delhi
who had given favourable reports, he is entitled to one last opportunity by
appearing before a Review Medical Board at the Army R&R Hospital,
Delhi. To allay the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner could be on medication for the treatment of
hypertension, which would camouflage the result, we deem it appropriate to
direct the respondent No.3/CISF to approach the Army R&R Hospital, New
Delhi, with a request to admit the petitioner for a period of one week or any
length of time considered necessary by the Medical Board of the said
Hospital, so that the effect of the medication, if any, for the treatment of
hypertension, wears off and a clear picture emerges with regard to his
medical condition, in the light of the two disabilities mentioned above.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and disposed of with
directions issued to the respondent No.3/CISF to give a written intimation of
the date and time, on which the petitioner shall present himself at the Army
R&R Hospital, New Delhi, for being admitted for a period of one week or
more/less, as considered necessary. The report of the Army R&R Hospital
shall be forwarded directly to the respondent No.3/CISF with a copy marked
to the petitioner. In the event the said report clears the petitioner of both the
conditions for which he has been disqualified by the respondents, then the
respondent No.3/CISF shall take immediate steps to process his candidature,
subject to any other eligibility conditions as prescribed, with all
consequential benefits to which he would be entitled in law.
9. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application, with no
orders as to costs. We make it clear that the above order has been passed in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be cited as a
precedent in the future.
DASTI to the counsel for the respondents.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
JANUARY 23, 2018
rkb/ap
