Rahul Slathia vs Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 997 Del

                          $~35
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                 Judgment delivered on: 05.07.2023
                          +        W.P.(C) 8861/2023 & CM APPL. 33499-33500/2023

                          RAHUL SLATHIA                                             ..... Petitioner

                                                      versus

                          UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                               ..... Respondents

                          Advocates who appeared in this case:

                          For the Appellant:          Ms. Nikita, Mr. Brijesh Yadav and Mr. Sandeep
                                                      Yadav, Advocates

                          For the Respondents:        Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Mohit Joshi, Advocates with
                                                      Mr. Hemendra Singh, Dy. Comdt. Law, BSF

                          CORAM:-
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

                                                 JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the Detailed Medical Examination result dated 06.06.2023 and the Review Medical Examination dated 08.06.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of 'hypertension'. It has also been contended that "the Revised Uniform Guidelines for review in medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signing Date:07.07.2023 14:05:09 GOs and NGOs" dated 31.05.2021 have not been followed in this regard.

3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

5. Reference may be had to the abovesaid guidelines prescribed for the Review Medical Board which, inter-alia, reads as under:

"7(e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should have been admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient in nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-Ray and electro- cardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc. tests should also be carried out."

6. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been declared 'unfit' on the ground of hypertension. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was not hospitalized by the Review Medical Board prior to giving final opinion. The Medical Board, as per the guidelines, should have also ascertained as to whether the rise in blood pressure was transient in nature due to excitement, etc. or whether it was due to an organic disease, as required by the guidelines.

7. Since the guidelines have clearly not been followed, the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Board cannot be accepted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signing Date:07.07.2023 14:05:09 Accordingly, the findings of the Review Medical Board are set aside. The respondents are directed to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board which shall examine the petitioner, inter-alia, in accordance with the guidelines dated 31.05.2021.

8. The Review Medical Board be constituted within a period of two weeks from today with at least four days' advance notice to the petitioner.

9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. It would be open to the petitioner to avail of any further remedies, if aggrieved by any such further decision of the Review Medical Board.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MANOJ JAIN, J JULY 5, 2023 'rs'

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signing Date:07.07.2023 14:05:09