Delhi High Court
Paridhi Chauhan vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 December, 2020
$~21.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10742/2020 & CM APPL. 33665/2020 (for stay).
PARIDHI CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Amar Gahlot, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 21.12.2020
[VIA VIDEO CONFERECING]
CM APPL. 33666/2020 (for exemption).
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10742/2020 & CM APPL. 33665/2020 (for stay).
3. The petitioner, a candidate for recruitment in Short Service
Commission (SSC) in the respondents Indian Army for SSCW (Tech)-26
Course, has filed this petition, aggrieved from the cancellation of his
candidature, on being declared medically unfit by the Medical Board,
Appeal Medical Board and Review Medical Board and seeks constitution of
an independent Medical Board to re-examine the petitioner.
4. We have dealt with the aspect of interference with such opinion of the
doctors of the Armed Forces, in Vani Viswanathan Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/1678/2020, Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine
Del 951, Akash Sharma Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2069/2020,
Nishant Kumar Vs Union of India MANU/DE/1486/2020, Sharvan Kumar
Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924 and Jonu Tiwari Vs
Union of India MANU/DE/1524/2020 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
13492/2020 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 17th December, 2020]
and may succinctly state that the view taken by us is that merely on a
challenge being made to the medical opinion of the experts of the
respondents, the petitioner cannot be referred for yet another opinion,
particularly on the basis of the opinion of another doctor, whether private or
from a government hospital, unless from a perusal of the medical opinion of
the Medical Board and the Appeal/Review Medical Board of the
respondents, a case for doubting the said opinion is made out or if the
opinion rendered is found to be vague. Here, the petitioner, by the Medical
Board, Appeal Medical Board as well as by the Review Medical Board, has
been declared unfit for the reason of suffering from „Heterochromia Iridis
with pigment dispersion in both eyes and Central Corneal Opacity in the left
eye‟. Though the senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has not been furnished the findings in writing of the Appeal Board and the
Review Medical Board but we are proceeding on the basis of pleadings of
the petitioner.
5. The petitioner challenges the said opinion on the basis of, (i) opinion
of Dr. Sandeep Mithal, Ex-Professor and Head of Department of
Ophthalmology, Lala Lajpat Rai Medical College, Meerut, a Government
run District Medical College and Hospital at Meerut, who has opined, again
as per the pleading of the petitioner herself, "that the opacity of the eye of
the petitioner is negligible and of no visual significance and further that
heterochromia iridis is just a variation of the normal and does not cause any
visual deterioration, whether present or in future"; (ii) opinion of the Dr.
A.K. Grover, Senior Consultant in the Ophthalmology Department at Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, who has opined "that the pigmented dots
on the surface of lens are congenital in origin, physiological in nature and
are not significant of any pathology which may cause deterioration of vision
in future"; (the petitioner has also pleaded that though the said doctor
informed her "that there is very small nebular opacity, the same being less
than1 mm in size, was not visually significant and that the petitioner has no
vision related problems"); (iii) opinion of the ophthalmological out patient
department (OPD) at the Lala Lajpat Rai Medical College, Meerut which
has opined "that no visually significant corneal opacity is present in either of
the eyes of the petitioner" and "that heterochromia iridis with pigment
dispersion has no visual significance and there is no evidence of
glaucoma/uveitis/ocular pathology"; (iv) opinion of Ophthalmological
OPD of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which has also opined "that the
petitioner has perfect vision, ocular pressure and color vision and there are
no other signs or symptoms of any sort"; (v) opinion of the doctors of All
India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi who have opined
"that colour difference in the eyes is caused by hyper pigmentation, which is
a normal condition, and not to be confused with any abnormality such as
pigment dispersion syndrome" and "that corneal opacity is nebular corneal
opacity and is not visually significant" and that "the eyes of the petitioners
are simply a variation of the normal and the said condition has no related
abnormality"; (vi) that the petitioner, in the year 2018 had cleared the Air
Force Common Admission Test and though was not selected but had
undergone a medical examination which had found the petitioner fit; and,
(vii) the petitioner, earlier had also participated in the Central Defence
Services Examination and though was found medically unfit but on appeal
thereagainst was orally informed by the Appeal Medical Board that the
petitioner was fit, though was not selected due to lower rank in the merit list.
6. What is significant is that the opinion of the other doctors consulted
by the petitioner is consistent with the opinion of the Medical Board, Appeal
Medical Board and Review Medical Board of the respondents Indian Army,
to the extent that the petitioner does indeed has heterochromia iridis and
opacity in the left eye. The difference between the opinion of the doctors of
the respondents Indian Army and the other doctors consulted by the
petitioner is, that while the doctors of the respondents Indian Army have
found the aforesaid to be disqualification for recruitment in the Defence
Forces, the other doctors have opined that the same has no effect on the
vision of the petitioner.
7. The aforesaid difference in opinion is understandable. It is only the
doctors of the respondents, who are aware of the rigors and fitness required
for serving in the Defence Forces in alien conditions, which civilians are not
even aware of, who can determine the fitness required therefor. It is for this
reason only that in the recruitment process, the medical examination is
provided to be conducted by the doctors and medical experts of the forces
themselves and not by the doctors of the civilian population. It is only the
foot which wears the shoe which can tell whether it pinches or not.
8. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that a medically unfit person,
when recruited, becomes a liability not only for the State but also for other
personnel of the Force who are required to serve for longer durations at
difficult posts merely because others, though recruited and on the roll of the
Force, are medically unfit therefor.
9. Thus, in view of the petitioner having been examined by
doctors/medical experts at three levels by the respondents i.e. by the Medical
Board, Appeal Medical Board and the Review Medical Board and in the
absence of any doubt as to their opinion, we do not find any case to entertain
the petition.
10. As far as the reliance by the senior counsel for the petitioner on the
pleas, of the petitioner having been found fit in other recruitment processes
undertaken by her, also of the Defence Forces, is concerned, suffice it is to
state that save for a bare plea there is nothing to demonstrate the same today.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not possessed of
documents declaring her medically fit. The fact of the matters remains that
the petitioner was not recruited. If the merit of the petitioner was low in
those examinations, as admitted by her also, it is well nigh possible that the
medical boards undertaking the examination also did not pay much heed to
the petitioner, knowing fully well that there was no chance of her being
recruited.
11. The senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the
medical standards and procedure of medical examination but we are afraid
the petitioner cannot derive any benefit thereof also. The same undoubtedly
make impairment of vision including colour perception and field of vision, a
ground for declaring a candidate unfit. We may also mention that the doctors
who examined the petitioner were of the Base Referral Hospital at Delhi and
of the Army Research and Referral Hospital at Delhi, who are often resorted
to by us, and also sought by others, seeking another round of medical review
of the doctors of other medical units of the respondents.
12. No case for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ASHA MENON, J
DECEMBER 21, 2020
„pp‟..
