Delhi High Court
Abhigyan Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2022
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 5083/2021 & CM 15575/2021
ABHIGYAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Mr.
Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ravi Prakash, CGSC with
Ms. Shruti Shiv Kumar, Mr.
Varun Agrawal, Mr. Gurtejpal
Singh, Advs. for UOI,
Dr. Jayachandra, Cardiologist
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 quashing of the
order dated 09.03.2021 whereby the petitioner‟s request for
examination by the Review Medical Board (in short, „RMB‟) was
rejected by the respondents. The petitioner further seeks permission to
appear for a fresh medical examination before an independent board of
doctors at the R&R Hospital or any other Government Hospital with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
relevant cardiovascular specialists, and if found fit, seeks appointment
in the Indian Air Force.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement
published by the Union Public Service Commission in January-
February 2020, the petitioner had applied seeking appointment in the
Armed Forces in the following order of preference:
a) Indian Air Force
i. Flying Branch
ii. Ground Duty
b) Indian Army
c) Indian Navy
d) Indian Naval Academy
3. The petitioner, after clearing the written examination, interview
and the Computerised Pilot Selection System (in short, „CPSS‟), was
required to appear before the Initial Medical Board (in short, „IMB‟)
for medical examination which was scheduled to be held at the
Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Bangalore. Vide report of the IMB
dated 17.12.2020, the petitioner was declared medically unfit on the
ground of „scoliosis of lumbar spine‟. During the IMB examination,
the petitioner was also informed that his ECG tests showed an
abnormality on the ground of „Right Bundle Branch Block‟ (in short,
„RBBB‟) and the respondents wanted a second opinion of their
specialists to be sure of the anomaly.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
4. The petitioner, to seek a second opinion, was referred to the
Command Hospital, Bangalore by the respondents for the opinion of
the Senior Cardiologist, who performed an Echocardiogram (in short,
„ECO‟) test on the petitioner on 18.12.2020. According to the report,
the petitioner was declared to be „fit‟.
5. After receipt of the report, the respondents filled out an
application form for the petitioner to appear before the Appeal
Medical Board (in short, „AMB‟) stating that he had been declared
temporarily unfit only on account of „scoliosis of the lumbar spine‟. At
the AMB stage, the test conducted by the respondents on 27.01.2021
was only an X-Ray of the petitioner‟s spine with respect to the
scoliosis. However, the petitioner was asked to undergo another ECO
test at Base Hospital, New Delhi on 12.02.2021. Vide report dated
15.02.2021, the petitioner was declared medically unfit as his ECG
was found to be abnormal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had been
made to believe by the respondents themselves that he was clear of
any cardiovascular abnormality, as the respondents at the time of
filling out the petitioner‟s application form for examination by the
AMB, did not include „RBBB‟ on his form. The learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that on 08.02.2021, the petitioner on
inquiry with the respondents, had been informed verbally that he is
medically fit for the post he had applied for and is not suffering from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
any kind of medical abnormality for which he has been initially
declared medically unfit.
7. This Court, in its order dated 08.12.2021, had directed the
learned counsel for the respondents to produce the original medical
record of the petitioner. The Court had further directed one of the
doctors, who had examined the petitioner at the AMB stage, to appear
before this Court by way of an online link.
8. In compliance with the said order, the medical record of the
petitioner has been produced before this Court. Dr. Jayachandra,
Cardiologist, who examined the petitioner at the AMB, has also
appeared through video conference pursuant to our direction.
9. A perusal of the medical records of the petitioner indicates that
the IMB conducted at the Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Bangalore
had declared the petitioner to be medically unfit on the grounds of
„scoliosis of lumbar spine Cobb‟s Angle > 15 degree‟ as well as
„RBBB in ECG‟. The record also contains an ECG which records the
finding of the petitioner suffering from RBBB. The same is signed by
Dr. VR Mujeeb, Group Captain, Sr. Med & Gastroenterology, CHAF
Bangalore.
10. Another ECG of the petitioner was conducted 12.02.2021 at the
stage of the AMB. Dr. Jayachandra has explained that both the ECG
show that the petitioner is suffering from RBBB.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
11. The medical record however, also contains a report dated
18.12.2020 of "2D Echo" with the remark "Normal Study" opined by
Dr. AJ Swamy, Air Cmde, Consultant (Med & Cardiology), CHAF
Bangalore. Relying thereon, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the same must be given primacy and in any case, there
being a contrary opinion on record, the petitioner should be allowed to
be examined by an independent Board of doctors. In this regard, he
has placed reliance on Clause 13(d) of Annexure C to the
Advertisement issued by the UPSC for the National Defence Academy
& Naval Academy Examination (I), 2020, which is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"13. Cardiovascular System
(d) Evidence of organic cardiovascular disease will
be cause for rejection. Diastolic murmurs are
invariably organic. Short systolic murmurs of
ejection systolic nature of ejection systolic nature
and not associated with thrill and which diminish on
standing, especially if associated with a normal
ECG and Chest radiograph, are most often
functional. However an echocardiogram should
always be done to exclude organic heart disease. In
case of any doubt the case should be referred to
cardiologist for opinion."
12. However, Dr. Jayachandra has explained that echocardiogram
would only show an organic heart disease. However, where the ECG
itself is showing the candidate to be suffering from RBBB, mere
normal report of echocardiogram is not sufficient to declare the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
candidate medically fit. He has also placed reliance on Clause 13(e) of
the Advertisement, which is reproduced herein below:
"13(e) Electro Cardiograms. Assessment of a
properly recorded ECG (resting - 14 lead) should be
carried out by a medical specialist. Note will be taken
of wave patterns, the amplitude, duration and time
relationship. At initial entry no abnormalities are
acceptable except incomplete RBBB in the absence of
structural heart disease, which must be excluded. In
such cases, opinion of Senior Adviser or Cardiologist
will be obtained."
13. Dr. Jayachandra explains that the petitioner‟s case was not that
of "incomplete RBBB" but of complete RBBB and there being no
doubt, report of echocardiogram is not relevant.
14. In view of the above explanation, though the echocardiogram
report of the petitioner states "Normal Study", the same does not
support the case of the petitioner any further. It must be remembered
that in selection to armed forces, the candidate must be fully fit and no
benefit of doubt in this regard can be given to the candidate. This
Court is of the opinion that the doctors of the Forces are the best judge
in ascertaining whether a candidate ought to be enrolled in the services
or not, owing to the strenuous and hostile terrain and environment
where personnel would have to serve. Any error in judgment,
particularly with respect to medical ailments as serious as the one in
the present case, would not only endanger the life of the petitioner but
also those of other officers involved in possible operations.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
15. This Court in its judgment dated 21.12.2020 in K.M. Priyanka
vs. 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, such opinion must
prevail.
16. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was declared medically unfit at the stage of IMB only on
ground of Scoliosis cannot also be accepted. The report clearly states
that he has been found Unfit also on the ground of RBBB in ECG. In
any case, petitioner‟s ECG was also taken at the AMB stage and as per
Dr. Jayachandra, the report was again showing the RBBB in the
petitioner. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as he
was re-examined for RBBB even at the AMB stage, even though his
appeal may have been only against the finding of Scoliosis.
17. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition,
the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 18, 2022/AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:25.01.2022
