Delhi High Court
Ms. Komal Rastogi vs Directoral General Central ... on 18 January, 2022
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 6589/2021
MS. KOMAL RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Fidel Sabastian, Adv.
versus
DIRECTORAL GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE
FORCE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Aman Malik, Sr. Panel
counsel for Central Govt. with
Mr.Syed Hussain Adil Taqvi,
Advs.
Dr.D.K.Verma,
Ophthalmologist 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 by the petitioner praying for
a direction to the respondents to refer the petitioner to any Senior
Ophthalmologist in any Government Hospital in Delhi for a medical
examination to ascertain whether the petitioner suffers from „bilateral
ptosis‟. The petitioner further seeks appointment as a Constable in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:20.01.2022
Central Reserve Police Force (in short, „CRPF‟) if the report received
by the Senior Ophthalmologist is contrary to the earlier findings.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement
by the respondent, the petitioner applied for selection as a Constable in
the CRPF in September 2019. During the initial medical examination
conducted on 06.09.2019, the petitioner was found to be suffering
from „Anaemia and bilateral ptosis‟. Following the result of the
medical examination, the petitioner was asked to approach the District
Hospital, Pilibhit in order to avail appropriate treatment and approach
the respondent again with a certificate from the District Hospital,
certifying that she has recovered from her ailment.
3. The petitioner complied with the orders and approached the
District Hospital, Pilibhit and upon consultation with the
Ophthalmologist, was certified to have recovered from the ailment.
This fact was directly informed to the respondent who upon receipt of
this information, asked the petitioner to report to the Base Hospital,
ITBP, Tigri, New Delhi for a Review Medical Examination (in short,
„RME‟) vide letter dated 03.10.2020.
4. Vide the RME result dated 04.11.2020, the petitioner was,
however, again declared medically unfit on the ground of „unfit B/L
Ptosis‟. Aggrieved by the report, the petitioner made a number of
representations against the rejection of her candidature and thereafter
filed the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:20.01.2022
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, during the RME stage, was not examined in a proper
manner, as the doctor examined the petitioner manually and that the
entire RME of the petitioner merely lasted for 3 minutes. The learned
counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the report of the
Ophthalmologist at the District Hospital, Pilibhit, further submits that
the petitioner has recovered from „bilateral ptosis‟ which is normally
caused as a result of anaemia and is often recovered automatically.
6. This Court, by its order dated 08.12.2021, had directed the
Ophthalmologist who had examined the petitioner during the conduct
of the RME to appear before this Court. In compliance with the same,
Dr. D.K. Verma had joined the proceedings by way of an online link
today.
7. Dr. Verma, by placing reliance on 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‟), explained that „bilateral ptosis‟ is a
ground for rejection till surgical correction remains successful for a
period of six months. The relevant portion of the Guidelines is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"III. General External Examination of the Eyes
and their Adnexae
xxxx
i) Lids, lashes and lacrimal apparatus. Any ptosis,
blepharitis or abnormal condition of the lachrymal
apparatus should be noted. Ptosis interfering with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:20.01.2022
vision or visual filed is a cause for rejection till
surgical correction remains successful for a period of
six months. Mild ptosis of less than 2 mm if not
associated with any signs aberrant regeneration or
head tilt and not interfering with vision should not be a
cause for rejection. Candidates with uncontrollable
blepharitis, particularly with loss of eyelashes, are
generally unsuitable and should be rejected. Naso-
lacrimal occlusion producing epiphora or a mucocele
entails rejection, unless surgery produces relief lasting
for a minimum of six months. This is to be confirmed
with syringing prior to endorsing fitness."
8. Dr. Verma is the Ophthalmologist and was a part of the board of
doctors who conducted the RME of the petitioner on 04.11.2020. He
has explained that the petitioner was suffering from "ptotis", which
was apparent from a visual examination of the petitioner, and the same
does not require any diagnostic evaluation. He further explained that
the report of District Hospital, Pilibhit is not binding on the RME and
in any case, cannot override the report of the RME, which conducts
the medical examination keeping in view the requirements of the
Armed Forces.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.
Verma, we find no reason to interfere with the opinion of the RME in
case of the petitioner. The petitioner was found to be suffering from
"bilateral ptosis" at the stage of the Initial Medical examination as
also at the stage of the RME. The board of doctors at the RME stage
included the specialist Ophthalmologist. In Km. Priyanka v. Union of
India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10783/2020, this Court has held that the
standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police
Forces is more stringent than that for the civilian employment. It was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:20.01.2022
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. Their report cannot be discarded and would, in fact, prevail over
the report of private or even other government doctors. It was 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."
10. In Joginder v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 522/2021,
this Court has reiterated 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:20.01.2022
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present
petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 18, 2022/AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:20.01.2022
