Delhi High Court
Vinit vs Union Of India And Others on 9 February, 2022
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 15178/2021 & CM 7113/2022
VINIT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.D.S.Mahendru, Adv.
Dr.Nilay Jain, 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 11.11.2021 by accepting the „Fitness‟ Report dated 08.09.2021
given by the CMO of Dr. BSA Hospital, GNCT of Delhi.
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 the ground of 'Defective vision (Rt)
eye- 6/9 (Lt. 6/9)'.
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 unfit on the ground of 'Defective
distant vision (Rt) eye- 6/18'.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
certificate of medical fitness issued to the petitioner by the CMO, Dr.
BSA Hospital, GNCT of Delhi, wherein the petitioner had been found
to have a 6/6 vision in both eyes. He submits that there is a
discrepancy in the reports of the DME and the RME, with the DME
recording the vision of the petitioner as 6/9 (Rt) and 6/9 (Lt), while the
RME records the same as 6/18 (Rt), while finding the vision in Left
eye to be 6/6. He submits that in view of the inconsistent results of the
two medical examinations, an independent board comprising of
ophthalmologists should be constituted to re-examine the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
and if found fit, offer recruitment against the notified vacancies in the
sports quota.
6. This Court, vide its order dated 03.01.2022, 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.
7. Dr. Nilay Jain, who was the ophthalmologist and who had
conducted the RME of the petitioner, has joined the proceedings by
way of an online video link in pursuance of the last order. Dr. Jain
explained that the doctor conducting the DME of the petitioner is not a
specialist ophthalmologist, while the RME was conducted by an „Eye
Board‟ constituted by the respondents and consisted of specialist
ophthalmologists, including himself. He submits that there can be
some minor variation in the findings of the DME and the RME in the
present case, however, complete procedure was followed while
conducting the RME proceedings for the petitioner.
8. We have considered the submissions made. In the present case,
the RME of the petitioner with respect to his eyesight was conducted
by a team comprising of three ophthalmologists who found the
petitioner to be unfit on the ground of 'Defective distant vision (Rt)
eye- 6/18'. Thus, the reports of the DME and the RME have both
found the petitioner to be medically unfit on account of defective
vision in his right eye. Minor discrepancy in recording the measure of
eyesight is not sufficient to cast any doubts on the veracity of these
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
reports, especially where the doctor conducting the DME was not an
ophthalmologist, while the RME was conducted by three
ophthalmologists.
9. As far as the reliance on the report of Dr. BSA Hospital, GNCT
of Delhi is concerned, in view of the fact that the petitioner was
examined by a team of specialist doctors at the stage of the RME, who
opined that the petitioner is suffering from 'Defective distant vision
(Rt) eye- 6/18', we again find no merit. It is to be noted that the RME
is held merely to ensure that no error has been made at the DME stage
in examining the candidate. Once the report of the RME confirms the
results of the DME, it is not for this Court to disregard or doubt these
medical reports on the basis of reports from a civil hospital.
10. This Court, in its judgment dated 29.11.2021 in Sandeep vs.
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force & Ors., W.P. (C) 13456 of 2021,
had dismissed the writ petition of a similarly-situated individual who
had been declared medically unfit on the ground of „defective vision
(BE)‟ and 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.
11. In Yogita Yadav vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 12858 of 2021,
this Court disallowed the writ petition of a candidate seeking medical
re-examination in view of the unanimous report of the Medical Board
and the Appeal Medical Board declaring the candidate to be medically
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
unfit on the ground of 'uncorrected visual acuity (RE)'. It was 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.
12. 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
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."
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned
Signing Date:11.02.2022
17:12:10
13. 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
