Delhi High Court
Ashok vs Union Of India And Others on 9 February, 2022
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 517/2022
ASHOK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Adv.
Dr. Padma Tamang is present
through video conference.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking rectification of
medical reports of the Review Medical Examination (in short, „RME‟)
dated 13.10.2021 by accepting the „Fitness‟ Report dated 11.09.2021
given by the Dental Surgeon of Government Hospital, Jhajjar.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement
for appointment to the post of Head Constable (GD) under the sports
quota in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, „CISF‟), the
petitioner preferred an application for being considered for the said
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
post. The petitioner is a national-level wrestler and has participated in
several National, State and Zonal-level wrestling competitions.
3. Upon clearing the document-verification process, the petitioner
was asked to appear for his Detailed Medical Examination (in short,
„DME‟) at CISF 5th RB, Ghaziabad, Indirapuram, Shipra Sun City,
Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as „CISF 5th RB‟) on 03.09.2021.
Vide letter dated 04.09.2021, the petitioner was issued a rejection slip
for medically unfit candidates informing the petitioner that he had
been declared medically unfit on three grounds, namely, 'insufficient
dental points', 'DNS/Deviated Nasal Septum' and 'Tattoo on dorsum
of RT Hand.'
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the finding of the
DME and underwent his RME at CISF 5th RB, and vide the impugned
report, the petitioner was found to be „fit‟ on two grounds, namely,
'DNS' and 'tattoo on dorsum of RT hand' but was still found to be
„unfit‟ on the ground of 'insufficient dental points'.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
certificate of medical fitness issued to the petitioner by the Dental
Surgeon of Government Hospital, Jhajjar, wherein the petitioner has
been found to have all teeth restored and no other abnormality was
detected.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there
is also an inconsistency in the report of the DME and the RME
inasmuch as the petitioner has been found by the RME to be „fit‟ on
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
account of 'DNS' and 'tattoo on dorsum of RT hand', while the DME
had found him to be „unfit‟ on these counts. He submits that on
account of these inconsistencies, the petitioner should be granted
another opportunity of medical examination.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
places reliance on the result of the RME, wherein upon examination
by the Board, the petitioner was found to have insufficient dental
points and was referred to a dental surgeon at RH CRPF for a
specialist opinion and was found to have merely thirteen dental points.
He submits that the same is a disqualification in terms of Clause
9(III)(2) of the of the „Guidelines for Recruitment Medical
Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles:
Revised Guidelines as on May 2015‟ (hereinafter referred to as the
„Guidelines‟), relevant extract from which is as under:-
"III. DENTAL EXAMINATION
1. General Consideration:
a) xxxx
b) A candidate must have sufficient number of natural teeth to
enable him to masticate efficiently and on no account will
be accepted, if he/she requires artificial dentures for
efficient mastication (i.e., artificial fixed denture replacing
any molar).
c) In order to assess whether a candidate has a sufficient
number of teeth to masticate efficiently, the following
guidelines will be taken into consideration for calculation
of Dental point :-
2. Calculation of Dental Points:
xxxx
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
Thus, the dental points will be counted as under:-
SL. Name of Teeth Teeth in Number Dental
either jaw allotted for Points
No. each tooth, if
in good
functional
apposition to
the
corresponding
teeth in the
other jaw
Maximum total points = 4+2+4+12= 22
A candidate will be accepted provided there are at least 14 Dental
points in his/her mouth and all these teeth must be sound or
reparable. Thus, the minimum number of points required in a
candidate will be 14. Well filled teeth will be considered sound. No
points will be counted for artificial denture."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. This Court, vide its order dated 11.01.2022, had directed the
respondents to produce the medical record of the petitioner before the
next date of hearing. The Court had further directed the doctor who
had conducted the RME of the petitioner to join the proceedings by
way of an online video link on the same date.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
9. Dr. Padma Tanang, who had joined the proceedings by way of
online video link in pursuance of the last order, confirmed that the
petitioner was found to be medically unfit on the ground of
„insufficient dental points' as is evidenced by way of examination by a
specialist doctor as well as an X-Ray conducted.
10. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties.
11. The Guidelines, which act as the standard operating procedure
with respect to the conduct of the DME as well as the RME in the
Central Armed Police Forces, set out the requirements with respect to
dental examination and the calculation of dental points. The petitioner
has been found to have insufficient dental points, both at the stage of
DME as also RME. There is no inconsistency in the two reports as far
as this aspect is concerned. In fact, as was expected of RME, the RME
has fairly re-examined the petitioner for DNS/Deviated Nasal Septum'
and 'Tattoo on dorsum of RT Hand' and found the petitioner „fit‟ on
these counts. Merely for this reason, the report of RME as far as
dental examination of the petitioner is concerned, cannot be doubted.
12. As far as the reliance on the report of Government Hospital,
Jhajjar is concerned, in view of the fact that the petitioner was
examined by a specialist doctor at the stage of the RME who opined
that the petitioner was suffering from „insufficient dental points', we
again find no merit. In the present case, the DME as also the RME
have found the petitioner to be medically unfit based on the
insufficient dental points, found to be thirteen in number. It is to be
noted that the RME is held merely to ensure that no error has been
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
made at the DME stage in examining the candidate. Once the RME
report has confirmed the results of the DME, it is not for this Court to
disregard or doubt these medical reports on the basis of a report from a
civil hospital.
13. This Court, in its judgment dated 29.11.2021 in Sandeep vs.
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force & Ors., W.P. (C) 13456 of 2021,
has held that medical opinion can vary from professional to
professional, but once the recruitment procedure provides for finality
and is 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.
14. In Yogita Yadav vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 12858 of 2021,
this Court has held that a further review is to be resorted to only in
exceptional circumstances; in the event of glaring inconsistencies; or
for any other exceptional reasons, for otherwise, the recruitment
process shall remain endless.
15. This Court, in its judgment dated 21.12.2020 in Km. Priyanka
vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10783 of 2020, has also held that
the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police
Forces is more stringent than for the civilian employment. It was held
that it is the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands
of duties and the physical standards required to discharge the same. It
was further held as under:
"8. We have on several occasions observed that the
standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
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."
16. In the present case, the report of Government Hospital, Jhajjar
is even otherwise vague and does not give the count of petitioner‟s
dental points. No reliance can, therefore, be placed over this report.
17. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition
and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2022/AB
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
