Delhi High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 December, 2021
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.12.2021
+ W.P. (C) 13125/2021
RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dilbag Singh, Sr. CGSC,
UOI for R-1.
Dr.Naishadh Jivarajani, Eye
Specialist in person is present
virtually.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for
a direction to the respondents to bring on record and set aside the
impugned order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Review Medical
Board of the respondent no. 2 declaring the petitioner as 'Unfit" for
appointment as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant
Sub Inspector in CISF Examination-2019 due to defective colour
vision. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents
to get the petitioner medically examined towards colour vision by a
fresh and independent Medical Board at any government hospital.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:06.12.2021
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied pursuant
to the Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub
Inspector in CISF Examination-2019. The petitioner, upon fulfilling
the eligibility criteria and clearing the Physical Endurance/Standard
Test (PET/PST), was invited for a Detailed Medical Examination on
25.10.2021 at Composite Hospital, CRPF, GC Campus Golf Course
Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan and was declared medically unfit on the
ground of 'defective distance vision, defective colour vision, Pilo
NIDAL SINUS, chronic dermatitis over chest, face, neck and upper
back area'.
3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the decision of the Detailed
Medical Examination, applied for a Review Medical Examination. At
the stage of the Review Medical Examination, the petitioner was
found medically unfit solely on the ground of defective colour vision
vide order dated 27.10.2021.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been
declared medically fit and not suffering from defective colour vision
by Goyal Netra Chikitsalaya (Super Specialty Eye Hospital), Mahavir
Chowk, Mahendragarh Road, Haryana and the Sawai Man Singh
Hospital, Jaipur.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPF and Assam
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:06.12.2021
Rifles issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, a
person with defective colour vision CP-IV would be unable to read
plates 2-9 and 22-25. He submits that in the present case the only
allegation in the Review Medical Board is that the petitioner was
unable to read plate 22. The petitioner was admittedly not made to
read the other plates.
6. This Court, vide its order dated 23.11.2021, directed the
following:
"Mr. Dilbag Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-
UOI, is directed to produce the medical record of the
petitioner on the next date of hearing. He is also directed to
obtain instructions as to whether an Eye Specialist was a
part of the team of Doctors that had examined the petitioner
at the Review Medical Board stage. A typed copy of the
report of the Review Medical Board shall also be placed on
record by the respondent-UOI."
7. Today the learned counsel for the respondents, as well as the
doctor on behalf of the respondents presented the medical file of the
petitioner to the Court. Upon perusal of the medical file as well as
consultation with the specialist doctor, it was brought to light that the
petitioner was unable to read plate 22 during the Ishihara test to
determine defective colour vision. The specialist doctor further
confirmed that the petitioner suffers from an extreme form of
defective colour vision wherein he can only identify primary colours.
Therefore, merely because the petitioner was not made to read the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:06.12.2021
other plates, in our opinion would not be sufficient to caste a doubt on
the medical examination of the petitioner.
8. At the outset it is to be noted that the Appeal Medical Board is
merely to ensure that no error is made by the original Medical Board
in examining the candidate. Once the Appeal Medical Board has
confirmed the finding of the original Medical Board, especially
through a specialist, we find no reason to doubt the same.
9. This Court in its judgment dated 21.12.2020 in K.M. Priyanka
v. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 10783/2020, has held that once no
mala fide is attributed and the doctors of the Forces, who are well
aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrains in which
the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion
that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, the opinion of
private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be
accepted.
10. In Joginder v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 522/2021, this
Court has held that training and military operations are extremely
demanding in terms of the medical fitness of a candidate and a private
doctor or a doctor working in a Government hospital may not be in a
position to comment on the required medical standards for the Force.
11. In Priti Yadav v. Union of India, (judgment dated 15.07.2020
passed in W.P.(C) 3930/2020), in the context of medical test for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:06.12.2021
recruitment in the officer cadre of Indian Air Force, this court held
that fitness for serving requisite duties in the Air Force is a matter of
opinion and if in the opinion of the authorities constituted under the
Rules of the Air Force, the petitioner is unfit, a report of a medical
practitioner of another organization which does not intend to recruit
the petitioner and which will not be affected by the medical unfitness
of the petitioner, cannot be the basis for interfering with the
assessment by the Air Force. It was further held that Medical opinion
can vary from professional to professional and once the Rules provide
for finality and are found to have provided for a review to eliminate
the possibility of human error, the finality has to be accepted, unless a
case for interference is made out. The said judgment would squarely
apply where recruitment is to be made to CAPF.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition,
the same is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 3, 2021/AB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:06.12.2021
