Anil Yadav vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 35 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010161792020




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : WP(C)/4821/2020

         ANIL YADAV
         ROLL NO. 5105061559
         S/O MR. SHYAM BAHADUR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHERONI
         KACHARI GAON,
         PO AND PS KHERONI, 782448, DIST WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME
         AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 INDIA

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
          CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH)
          EAST BLOCK
          07
          LEVEL 4
          SECTOR 01
          R K PURAM NEW DELHI 110066

         3:THE DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD
          CAPFs
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER
         ARCH (SUKHOVI) CENTRE
         ASSAM RIFLES COMPOSITE HOSPITAL
          DIMAPUR
          NAGALAND
          797115

         4:THE REVIEW MEDICAL BOARD
          COMPOSITE HOSPITAL
          BSF
                                                                      Page No.# 2/8

          PATGAON
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
          (SG)
          BSF
          COMPOSITE HOSPITAL
          PATGAON
          DIST KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 781017
          ASSAM

          5:STATE MEDICAL BOARD

           GOVT. OF ASSAM
           C/O DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE
           LATASIL
           UZAN BAZAR
           GUWAHATI 781001
           KAMRUP M ASSA

                                  BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA



      For the petitioner           : Mr. R. Bora.
      For the respondent           : Mr. B. Deka, Advocate.

: Mr. S.S. Roy, GA.

      Date of hearing              : 04.10.2021.
      Date of judgment             : 04.01.2022.


                           JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                                      (CAV)

Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Deka, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate for respondent no. 5.

2) The petitioner had participated in the "Constables (GD) in Page No.# 3/8

Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018", pursuant to advertisement published in Employment News, 21-27 July, 2018 edition. The petitioner qualified in the written test and was thereafter called for Medical Test and as per Medical Test Report dated 23.01.2020, the petitioner was declared unfit. Thereafter, for the purpose of filing appeal against medical unfitness, the petitioner got himself examined in Diphu Medical College & Hospital at the Department of Ophthalmology, and the Registrar of the said Department as well as the Senior Medical & Health Officer (ENT Specialist) of the said Diphu Medical College & Hospital considered the three grounds of declaring the petitioner as medically unfit, issued a "medical fitness certificate" dated 29.01.2020 in the prescribed Form No. 3 CAPFs Constable (GD)- 2018, thereby declaring to the following effect that - "(1) Colour Vision is within normal limit; (2) Intercondylar/Intermalleolar distance is within physiological limit and will not cause any impact in carrying out normal physical activity; (3) Wax cleaned & ears found to be normal". Armed with the said certificate, the petitioner preferred an appeal against medical unfitness, and the Review Medical Examination (RME for short) was held on 08.10.2020. However, in the RME, while the Colour Vision and Ear was found in favour of the petitioner, but by giving a finding to the effect that "Gross knock knee IMD more than 5 cm, the petitioner was again declared unfit on account of "Knock knee". Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for a direction for having the petitioner re-examined by a medical board consisting of specialists or State Medical Board and/or to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Page No.# 4/8

(AR).

3) Assailing the finding of the Medical Test and RME declaring the petitioner to be medically unfit on account of knock-knee, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the RME, the petitioner had got himself examined by Dey's Nursing Home, Hojai as well as in the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital and his knock knee was found to be under normal limits. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner had not only suffered discrimination by the respondent authorities but his case was not properly considered and that the RME was perfunctorily conducted with a view to reject the candidature of the petitioner. It is submitted that as the medical reports of the petitioner as given by Doctors of two Medical College and Hospitals in the State of Assam is poles apart from the one given by recruitment medical examination and RME, this is a fit and proper case for the Court to issue a direction for a re-examination of the case of the petitioner for ascertaining if he is actually suffering from any knock-knee. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) Baikuntha Rajbongshi v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 4 GLR 424: 2018 Legal Eagle (Gau) 243, and (ii) Devinder v. Border Security Force & Anr., W.P.(C) 8130/2011 decided on 18.11.2011.

4) Per contra, the learned CGC has submitted that the Medical Fitness Test as well as Review Medical Examination are based on "Guidelines for recruitment medical examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles", revised as on May, 2015, which lays down the procedure for examination for "knock-knee" deformity. By producing the original record of the Estt. Recruitment Branch Page No.# 5/8

(Rectt Cell) of the Frontier HQ BSF Guwahati, bearing File No. Ghty/Estt (rectt)/0737 pertaining to the petitioner, it is submitted that apart from other materials, it also contains the photograph of the petitioner taken on 08.10.2020 at the time of his RME, which clearly discloses that the petitioner had knock knee, as the distance between two ankles was more than the scale of 5 cms. and it is submitted that the same was clinching evidence. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the knock knee deformity of the petitioner was more than 5 cms., no wrong was committed by the authorities to declare him to be medically unfit because of knock-knee.

5) The learned Government Advocate submits that he is a mere formal party in this writ petition and has nothing to submit and that his presence is only to safeguard the interest of the State.

6) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and original recruitment record of the petitioner.

7) In this case, the empirical data of the extent of the knock-knee deformity of the petitioner, which in medical term is referred as "Genu valgus", is not available in (i) "Detailed Medical Examination in Form No.1" dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-E), (ii) medical fitness certificate dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure-F), which is the certificate issued in Form No. 3 by the Diphu Medical College & Hospital, and (iii) Medical Certificate dated 11.10.2020 (Annexure-J), but the empirical data is available in (a) RME Report dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure-I) mentioning that IMD more than 5 cm, and (b) Radiological Report Page No.# 6/8

dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure-K) mentioning that "Right tibiofemoral angle-6.5 degree; Left tibiofemoral angle- 6.12 degree", and (c) Medical Certificate dated 20.10.2020 issued by the Registrar, Department of Orthopedics, Guwahati Medical College & Hospital (part of Annexure-K), where it has been mentioned

that "Tibiofemoral angle of both right (6.05 o) and left (6.12o)", as per the X-Ray, lower limb is within normal limit".

8) In the quest to understand the tibiofemoral angular, perused a medical text-book available in the internet, named, "The Measurement and Analysis of Axial Deformity at the Knee" written by Kenneth A. Krackow, M.D., Clinical Director, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kaledia Health System, Buffalo General Hospital, Professor and Full Time Faculty, State University of New York at Buffalo, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, which is published by Homer Stryker Centre (Copyright @ 2008 Stryker), wherein at page 10, the tibiofemoral bone diagrams are given and it has been explained that "If normal

is assumed to be 6o (six degree) valgus, the deformity is 14o (fourteen degree) valgus".

9) Therefore, the RME appears to be in consonance with the X-Ray Report and Medical Certificate issued by the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. The print-out of photograph of the petitioner which is available in the record produced by the learned CGC appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 gives a prima facie visual impression that the internal malleolar distance is more than the 05 cm scale.

10) It would be relevant to extract para-9(IX)(2)(i) of the "Guidelines Page No.# 7/8

for recruitment medical examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles, revised as on May, 2015", which is as follows:-

"(i) Knock Knee:

A separation of internal malleoli of over 5 cms will be a disqualification. Deformities of knee joint How to examine knock knee-

The Candidate is made to stand with the internal malleoli approximated and look for any over-riding of both the knees. To confirm, the candidate is asked to lie down on examination table with patellae facing towards ceiling, vertically up and straight. One of the lower limbs is lifted up to approximate with the medical condyle opposite site. The distance between the internal malleoli is then measured with the help of a 05 cm long wooden block. The reading more than 05 cm is a cause of rejection as knock Knee. In case of female candidates, the maximum permissible inter-malleolar distance is 08 cm.

The same test can be done with the body sitting upright on a chair, the legs fully extended in front & knees just touching (passively, with the help of the assistant)."

11) In the case of Devinder (supra), the Delhi High Court had ordered another medical examination in the absence of any empirical data, which is not the fact of the present case in hand. In the case of Baikuntha Rajbongshi, this Court had ordered re-examination of the writ petitioner by a team of an Orthopaedic Surgeon and ENT Surgeon either from the Medical College/ Civil Hospital/ specified doctors of the force. With all due respect to the said cases, the said cases would not be applicable in this present case, as the X- Ray Report and Medical Certificate dated 20.10.2020 issued by the GMCH (Annexure-K) provides the requisite empirical data regarding existence of "Right tibiofemoral angle-6.5 degree; Left tibiofemoral angle- 6.12 degree". At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the photograph of the petitioner as available in the original record produced by the learned CGC deformity gives a prima facie Page No.# 8/8

visual impression that the internal malleolar distance is more than the 05 cm scale, which is the cause of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of "Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR).

12) In light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant