Delhi High Court
K M Priyanka vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 December, 2020
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21st December, 2020
+ W.P.(C)10783/2020
KM. PRIYANKA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. K. Trivedi, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.T.P.Singh, Sr. Central Govt.
Counsel for Respondents/UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE ASHA MENON
W.P.(C)10783/2020 & C.M.Appln.33829/2020 (of the petitioner
for directions)
1. The petitioner is an aspirant to the post of Constable (G.D.)
in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and had applied for
the said post pursuant to the advertisement dated 21 st July, 2018,
published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar.
2. The petitioner appeared for the written test on 14th February,
W.P.(C)10783/2020 Page 1 of 5
2019 and qualified the written test. Subsequently, she appeared for
the Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET) on
26th August, 2019 and was also successful in these tests. On 20 th
January, 2020, she was called for a medical examination.
Unfortunately, she was declared medically unfit for "Carrying
Angle > 20° Both Side". She was issued a medical unfitness
certificate of the same date, i.e. 20th January, 2020. She was
granted a chance to file an appeal against this finding. Before filing
the appeal, she was also required to obtain a medical certificate
from a medical practitioner/specialist medical officer of a
government district hospital.
3. The petitioner approached the specialist orthopaedic surgeon
in the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Government of
Karnataka, who, after conducting a thorough examination, declared
the petitioner fit, observing that "there is a bit Cubitus Valgus
carrying angle < 20° (18°)".
4. On 26th October, 2020, the petitioner appeared before the
Review Medical Board which again declared her unfit for the same
reason. She questioned the conclusion of the Review Medical
Board by submitting an application dated 30th October, 2020 to the
competent authority in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
contending that there was no specialist in the Review Medical
Board and that she had been wrongly declared unfit.
5. Further, in order to assure herself that she was not suffering
from any defect, she got herself examined at Aster CMI Hospital,
W.P.(C)10783/2020 Page 2 of 5
Bangalore on 24th November, 2020. The specialist, Dr.D.Akshay
Yadav examined her and concluded that the carrying angle was:
"right elbow 18° left elbow 19°". With a view to strengthen her
claim, she also got herself examined at another hospital i.e.
Columbia Asia in Bangalore, on 2nd December, 2020 where an X-
ray was taken of her both elbows. Once again, the conclusion of the
specialist was that there was "mild cubital valgus seen bilaterally -
Right: 18 and Left 19", i.e., less than 20° and the petitioner was fit.
6. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh.
A.K.Trivedi, Advocate, that as per the "Uniform Guidelines for
Medical Examination Test of Combined Recruitment of CT/GD in
CAPFs/ARs", one subject specialist had to be included in the
Review Medical Board. These guidelines have been placed as
Annexure P-10. However, when we asked, the learned counsel, the
source of the information about the absence of a specialist on that
Review Medical Board, no convincing answer was forthcoming.
Though he sought some time to verify the same from the petitioner
but was unable to explain as to what was her source of such
information. We therefore do not deem it necessary to postpone the
conclusion of this case to another day.
7. The learned counsel appearing on advance notice for the
respondents CRPF had only this to submit that the CRPF had no
role to play in the conduct of the medical examination, which had
been conducted by the Border Security Force (BSF), and it had
been unnecessarily made the party respondent to this petition.
W.P.(C)10783/2020 Page 3 of 5
8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of
physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more
stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav
Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs.
Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs.
Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar
Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, held that once
no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are
well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in
which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an
opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment,
opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary
cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are
required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or
the government hospitals and which medical professionals are
unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces. In fact, the
case of Priti Yadav (supra) also related to 'cubital valgus'. It is
also to be noted that the specialists that the petitioner had consulted
had also found that the petitioner suffered from 'cubital valgus'
and therefore, the findings by the Medical Boards were not wrong.
9. What may seem as a minor difference in the assessment of
the Civil doctors in comparison to the assessment of the Medical
Boards, may blow up into a serious health condition during the
course of service with the CAPFs. It is not in the interest of either
the Police Forces or candidates that their medical problems are
W.P.(C)10783/2020 Page 4 of 5
brushed aside only on the plea that it was a question of
employment. The general health of candidates would be
permanently impacted due to the stress, both physical and mental,
on account of these medical shortcomings. On the other hand, the
government would be saddled with a Police Force where such
personnel would seek soft postings because of their health
conditions and low medical category. This would lead to
dissatisfaction amongst the personnel in the Forces as some people,
who ought not to have been taken into the Forces, would always
benefit, whereas the others would be mostly faced with hard
postings and duties.
10. The petitioner has availed of all opportunities to get a second
opinion during the Appeal/Review Medical Board and there is no
purpose left in getting a further medical examination conducted.
11. We therefore find no merit in the present case.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
ASHA MENON, J.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2020
manjeet
