Delhi High Court
Keshaw Diwakar vs The Chairman, Staff Selection ... on 16 October, 2018
$~20.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7673/2017 and CM APPL. 31727/2017
KESHAW DIWAKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. R.K. Chaurasia
and Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocates
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. Abhigyan, Ms. Tejaswita and Mr. Sidhant,
Advocates with Mr. Feroz Khan, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 16.10.2018
1. The petitioner assails the report of the Review Medical Board dated
19.07.2017, passed by the respondent No.1/SSC, declaring him 'unfit' for
recruitment to the post of SI in the Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in CISF,
on account of suffering from hypertension.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as gathered from the records are
that on 09.01.2016, the respondent No.1/SSC had issued an advertisement
for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in the Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in the
CISF. The petitioner had participated in a written test (Tier-I) on
20.03.2016. On 13.09.2016, 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 18.12.2016. On
13.04.2017, the petitioner was subjected to a medical examination at the
Composite Hospital, Gorakhpur, UP and was declared 'unfit' on the ground
that he was suffering from "D/V 6/9(R) eyesight" and "hypertension"
(Annexure P-6).
3. After appearing before a doctor at the Government Hospital at Patna,
who cleared him of any problem relating to the eyesight and hypertension
the petitioner submitted a Medical Fitness Certificate dated 21.04.2017.
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 19.07.2017. As per the
report of the Review Medical Board, the petitioner was found fit from the
eye side. However, he was declared unfit on the other count, i.e.,
'Hypertension'.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had got himself
examined at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna on 21.04.2017
and at the Nalanda Medical College, Patna on 18.08.2017 and both the Govt.
Hospitals had given reports in his favour. He refers to the diagnosis of the
Doctors as recorded in the Medical Fitness Certificate issued to the
petitioner by the Hospital to contend that he had been thoroughly examined
and was found fit in all respects. Aggrieved by the report of the Review
Medical Board, 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 two grounds, which were reduced to one ground 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 any Hospital at 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 opposes the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack
of territorial jurisdiction. He also refers to clause 20 of the advertisement
dated 09.01.2016 in this regard. On merits, he submits that the advertisement
published by the respondent No.1/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, 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.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was subsequently examined by
doctors at two Government Hospitals in Patna who had given favourable
reports, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to one last opportunity of
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, as may be 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 disability mentioned above.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and disposed of with
directions issued to the respondent No.2/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.2/CISF with a copy marked
to the petitioner. The said Report shall be final and binding on both sides. In
the event the said report clears the petitioner of the condition for which he
has been disqualified by the respondents, then the respondent No.2/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
OCTOBER 16, 2018/na
