Delhi High Court
Sandeep vs Indo Tibetan Boarder Police Force ... on 29 November, 2021
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.11.2021
+ W.P.(C) 13456/2021
SANDEEP ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Adv.
versus
INDO TIBETAN BOARDER POLICE FORCE & ORS
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Sr. Panel
counsel, UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 42436/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions
Application stands disposed of.
WP(C) 13456/2021 & CM No.42435/2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
report of the Review Medical Examination dated 15.09.2021 of the
petitioner, declaring the petitioner 'unfit' for appointment as
Constable (Driver) with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force
(hereinafter referred to as 'ITBP Force') due to defective vision of
6/12 (right eye) and 6/12 (left eye).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:01.12.2021
2. The petitioner further challenges the order dated 01.11.2021
passed by the respondent no.4 dismissing the petitioner's
representation against the decision of the Review Medical Board. The
petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent to carry out a Review
Medical Examination of the petitioner in any independent Medical
Institution and if found fit, appoint the petitioner as a Constable
(Driver) in the ITBP Force with all consequential benefits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had applied for the post of Constable (Driver), under the Scheduled
Caste category pursuant to the advertisement for recruitment issued by
the ITBP Force in the year 2017. The petitioner qualified the Physical
Efficiency Test (PET) and the Physical Standard Test (PST) as also
the written test. The petitioner was thereafter subjected to a Detailed
Medical Examination at Referral Hospital, ITBP Campus, PO-
Surajpur, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on
13.09.2021 and was declared unfit on the following two counts:
(i) Low Eye Vision 6/9 BE
(ii) Varicose vein in left foot
4. The petitioner was thereafter subjected to a Review Medical
Examination in the same hospital and was declared fit for 'Varicose
vein in left foot' but declared unfit due to 'defective eye vision 6/12
BE'.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Review
Medical Examination was carried out in a hush-hush manner without
even understanding the unfitness of the petitioner. The petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:01.12.2021
thereafter obtained medical fitness certificates from doctors at Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, Guru Nanak Eye Centre,
New Delhi and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
reporting the eye vision of the petitioner to be normal.
6. The petitioner therefore, made a representation dated
19.10.2021 to the respondents, however, by the impugned order dated
01.11.2021, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected
without considering the submissions made by the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently the
petitioner has also been found 'fit' by the Delhi Transport Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as 'DTC') in its selection process for the post
of Driver.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
judgment dated 21.05.2018 of this Court passed in Deepak Pahal vs.
Staff Selection Commission, W.P.(C) No. 6753/2017 and Vijay Malik
vs. Staff Selection Commission, W.P.(C) No. 6575/2017, to submit
that the petitioner is ready and willing to be subjected to the medical
examination by an Army hospital.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, however, find no force in the same.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:01.12.2021
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. In Priti Yadav v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 3930/2020, in the
context of medical test for 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 Indian Air Force (hereinafter
referred to as 'Rules'), 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 Indian Air Force. It was further held that medical
opinion can vary from professional to professional and once the Rules
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:01.12.2021
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.
13. In the present case, even the report from Dr. RML Hospital,
which shows the vision of the petitioner as 6/9 (right eye) and 6/6 (left
eye), and the report of Guru Nanak Eye Centre, which shows the
vision of the petitioner as 6/6 (right eye) and 6/5 (left eye), do not
show the petitioner meeting the standards of 6/6 (both eyes) prescribed
by the respondents for appointment as a Constable (Driver) in the
ITBP Force.
14. Equally, the mere fact that the petitioner has been declared fit
by the DTC (though no such averment is made in the petition and no
document in support thereof has been produced) is also not relevant as
it is for DTC to determine the eligibility of the candidates in its
selection process. However, DTC cannot determine the eligibility of
the candidates for ITBP Force.
15. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition
and application, the same are dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2021/RN/AB
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHALOO BATRA
Location:
Signing Date:01.12.2021
