Delhi High Court
Rishi Bhardwaj vs Union Of India & Anr. on 4 June, 2021
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4743/2021 and CM 17485/2021 (for early hearing)
RISHI BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Bhavana Duhoon and Mr.Anshul
Syal, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 04.06.2021
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The petitioner was a candidate in the recruitment carried out by
respondent No. 2 Indian Air Force in the year 2020 to join as 'Airmen' in
Group 'X' (Technical Trades) for intake in January, 2021. The petitioner
applied for the position of Airman and after being selected, was subjected to
medical examination on 30th December, 2020. Following the medical
examination, the petitioner was issued a medical unfitness certificate on the
following three grounds:- (i) Varicocele left; (ii) External Haemorrhoids
Grade 2; and, (iii) ECG abnormality. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner
filed an appeal before the Appeal Medical Board, as provided for under
Clause 20 of the notification for recruitment of Airmen and was directed to
appear at the Station Medicare Centre on 15th January, 2021. The Appeal
Medical Board also declared the petitioner unfit vide Certificate dated 1st
March, 2021, on the following grounds:- (i) Varicocele left; and, (ii) ECG
abnormality.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner underwent a surgery
for correction of 'Varicocele left' on 11th January, 2021 following which the
same was categorised as Grade Zero. It is further the case of the petitioner
that no ECG was conducted by the Appeal Medical Board upon the
petitioner, when the petitioner appeared before the Appeal Medical Board.
Therefore, it is the submission of the petitioner that the rejection by the
Appeal Medical Board was wrong. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
Medical Unfitness Certificate dated 1st March, 2021 by the Appeal Medical
Board be set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider the
petitioner for the post of Airman.
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31st May, 2021, the counsel
for the respondents has filed the Medical Manual along with relevant
documents pertaining to the medical examination of the Petitioner. The
counsel for the respondents places reliance on page 6 of the said documents,
which has endorsements of examination of the petitioner by various medical
officers of the respondents. He specifically places reliance on the
endorsement of 8th February, 2021 wherein the doctor of the Base Hospital,
Delhi Cantt., has recorded the petitioner to be unfit on account of Grade -1
'Varicocele left'. There is also an endorsement of 9th February, 2021, which
records that the petitioner was declared 'unfit in absentia', as the petitioner
failed to appear for conducting of the ECG. The said medical record is
summarised in the Certificate dated 1st March, 2021 at page 7 of the
documents filed by the respondents, wherein the opinions of various
specialists, as discussed above, have been recorded/summarised. Attention
of this Court is also drawn to Clause 3.6.2 (b) on internal page 103 of the
'Manual of Medical Examinations and Medical Board' (Medical Manual) of
the respondent No. 2 Indian Air Force, (page 11 of the documents filed by
the respondents). The said clause provides as under-
"3.6.2 Clinical Examination...
(b) Varicocele
(i) Unfit- All grades of current varicocele
(ii) Fit- Post-operative cases of varicocele with no residual
varicocele and no post op complication or testicular atrophy may
be made fit after 04 weeks of surgery, for sub-inguinal
varicocoelectomy."
In the light of the above, the Appeal Medical Board declared the
petitioner to be unfit.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that since the
petitioner has undergone the surgery to correct 'Varicocele left', the same
should have been taken in account by the Appeal Medical Board while
declaring the petitioner unfit. He further contended that the Appeal Medical
Board should have been held later so that he would have been fully cured. It
is further reiterated that the petitioner duly presented himself for the ECG
test however the same was not conducted by the Appeal Medical Board.
5. We have considered the submissions of the parties. There is no basis
to disbelieve the records of the respondents that reflect that the petitioner did
not appear for conduct of the ECG. It is not the case of the petitioner that
there was a bias or malafide against him. Similarly, the contention of the
petitioner that by getting himself operated he got cured of 'Varicocele left'
cannot be accepted. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the original
medical examination as well as the Appeal Medical Board, he was found
medically unfit. The holding of the Appeal Medical Board cannot be at the
convenience of the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner would have got
cured later, cannot be a ground for a fresh medical examination. In this
regard, reference may be made to Sonu Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/0584/2021.
6. In the light of the record produced by the respondents, it is a clear
finding of the Appeal Medical Board that the petitioner was unfit on account
of the aforesaid two grounds. The documents produced by the petitioner
from other hospitals cannot be relied upon as opposed to the documents of
the respondents from the hospitals of the respondents. It has been held in
various pronouncements by this Court that the medical records of the
respondents have to prevail over the documents produced from other
hospitals by the petitioner, even if the said other hospitals happen to be
government hospitals. Reference may be made to Vani Viswanathan Vs.
Union of India MANU/DE/1678/2020 (DB) [Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.12682/2020 preferred against which, was dismissed on 5th January,
2021], Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1524/2020 (DB)
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13492/2020 preferred against which, was
dismissed on 17th December, 2020], Deepak Kumar Vs. Union of India
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2495 and judgment dated 27th May, 2021 in W.P.(C)
1341/2021 in Pooja Vs. Union of India.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition.
8. The next date scheduled in the petition stands cancelled.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
JUNE 4, 2021
SU
