Delhi High Court
Atesh Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 9867/2023, CM APPL. 37953/2023
ATESH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aayushman Aeron and Mr.
Divyanshu Shekhar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, SPC
with Ms. Megha Sharma, Mr.
Arya Jha, Ms. Aniruddha
Ghosh and Mr. Deepak Tanwar,
Advs. for UOI.
Dr. Pranjal Dubey (through
VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the findings of
the Detailed Medical Examination dated 24.06.2023 and the Review
Medical Examination (RME) dated 08.07.2023, by which the
petitioner was declared unfit for appointment to the post of Sub-
Inspector (SI) in the Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces
Examination, 2022 on the ground that he is suffering from Abnormal
X-ray - Incomplete left cervical rib and that his '12th rib' is absent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
absence of the 12th rib does not, in any manner, effect or impede the
efficient discharge of duties. He also submitted that in the
appointment for the post of SI in the Delhi Police and the Central
Armed Police Forces Examination, 2022, he has been declared
medically fit. He submits that, therefore, there is a contradiction in the
two medical reports.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that even the medical examination of the petitioner from the
Yatharth Wellness Hospital and Trauma Centre, Greater Noida, Uttar
Pradesh, confirms the absence of the 12th rib.
4. Dr. Pranjal Dubey, who appears pursuant to the directions of
this Court vide Order dated 05.11.2024, has submitted a written reply
as under:
"1) Absent 12 rib is a congenital anomaly
which has an incidence of about 1.75% in the
general population.
2) this condition is more prevalent in females
than males in a ratio of 3:1.
3) Usually this condition carries little or no
clinical significance apart from a few
significant associations.
4) Absent 12th rib may be associated or may
predispose to the development of a condition
called as The 12th rib syndrome.
5) This syndrome manifests as chronic pain
ranging from mild to severe stabbing pain in
the back, flanks and/or abdomen by a constant
irritation of the 12th intercostal nerve due to a
highly mobile 11th rib.
The pain is aggravated by certain movements
and positions such as lateral/sideways
movement of the upper body, rotational
movement of body or rising from a sitting
position etc.
The exact incidence of this condition is not
known as it is largely underdiagnosed but it is
deemed to be quite common.
6) In the job profile of a serving soldier, the
candidate will remain exposed to the high
possibility of developing this condition due to
his congenital anomaly."
5. It need not be emphasised that the medical standards that are
required for appointment to an Armed Force are more stringent as
compared to what may be prescribed for most civilian posts. The
medical standards that have been prescribed in the 'Guidelines for
Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces
and Assam Rifles' dated May, 2015, are only illustrative in nature and
not exhaustive. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Judgment
dated 21.12.2020 of this Court in W.P.(C) 10783/2020, titled KM.
Priyanka vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein it has been 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 v. Union of India 2020
SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari v. Union of
India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant
Kumar v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine
Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai v. 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. In fact, the case of Priti Yadav (supra)
also related to „cubital valgus‟. It is also to be
noted that the specialists that the petitioner
had consulted had also found that the
petitioner suffered from „cubital valgus‟ and
therefore, the findings by the Medical Boards
were not wrong.
9. What may seem as a minor difference in the
assessment of the Civil doctors in comparison
to the assessment of the Medical Boards, may
blow up into a serious health condition during
the course of service with the CAPFs. It is not
in the interest of either the Police Forces or
candidates that their medical problems are
brushed aside only on the plea that it was a
question of employment. The general health of
candidates would be permanently impacted
due to the stress, both physical and mental, on
account of these medical shortcomings. On the
other hand, the government would be saddled
with a Police Force where such personnel
would seek soft postings because of their
health conditions and low medical category.
This would lead to dissatisfaction amongst the
personnel in the Forces as some people, who
ought not to have been taken into the Forces,
would always benefit, whereas the others
would be mostly faced with hard postings and
duties."
6. Keeping in view the opinion expressed by Dr. Pranjal Dubey,
we are of the opinion that no fault can be found in the rejection of the
petitioner on the ground of the absence of the 12th rib.
7. Accordingly, the petition along with the pending application is
dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 22, 2024/sds/B/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
