Jharkhand High Court
Vikas Kumar vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5437 of 2022
----------
Vikas Kumar .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi through its
Principal Secretary.
2. The Director General, CRPF (Recruitment Branch), East Block-07,
Level-4, Sector-01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General (Recruitment), CRPF, East Block-
07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
4. The Director General (DG), 40th BN, ITBP, Village-Sukurhutu,
P.O. & P.S. Kanke, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Inspector General, Appellate Authority, RME CT/GD-
18 (Board I and Board II) 40th BN ITBP, Village Sukurhutu, P.O. &
P.S. Kanke, Ranchi.
6. The Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi, through the
Chairman.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, CGC
----------
06/ 26.09.2023 Heard the parties.
Prayers made
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the
impugned order dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), passed
by Dy. Inspector General (Appellate Authority), whereby appeal for Review
Medical Examination (RME) preferred by the petitioner against his medical
unfitness declared in the Detailed Medical Examination for the post of
Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA & SSF and Rifleman
(GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018 has been rejected.
Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to
conduct Review Medical Examination of the petitioner.
Factual Matrix
3. The Staff Selection Commission has floated an advertisement being
Advt. No. F.No.3/2/2017-P&P-I for appointment to the post of Constable
(GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in
Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018. The petitioner being eligible in all
respects, applied for the same and thereafter, an Admit Card was issued for
appearing in the Computer Based Examination, in which he was declared
successful. Upon being declared successful, the petitioner was called for
Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and to that
effect, an admit card was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in
the PST/PET examination, where he was declared successful and qualified.
Thereafter, he was called for Detailed Medical Examination (DME),
wherein the petitioner was found medically unfit on the ground; (i)
Diminished vision in both eyes rt 6/12 lt 6/9; (ii) bow legs. Being declared
medically unfit in the DME, the petitioner got himself examined by the
Medical Practitioner of a Govt. Hospital, wherein he was declared
medically fit and a Certificate to that effect was also issued to him.
4. Hence, being aggrieved by the report of Detailed Medical
Examination, the petitioner preferred an appeal for Review Medical
Examination annexing the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by the Govt.
Medical Practitioner. The petitioner was under a legitimate expectation that
his case will be considered for Review Medical Examination as he was
declared medically fit by the Govt. Medical Practitioner. However, to his
utter shock and surprise, the Appellate Authority summarily rejected the
appeal preferred by him.
Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this
Court.
Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
5. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
strenuously urges that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Authority
has erred in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of non-
enclosure of Form-1 as nowhere in the entire recruitment scheme, there was
any requirement for enclosure of Form-1 for filing an appeal against the
Detailed Medical Examination. Learned counsel further argues that the
Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on further
ground that Specialist opinion has not been obtained, which is totally
arbitrary and malafide in nature and against the provision contained in
Clause-9(IV)(E) of Review Medical Examination. Learned counsel further
argues that nowhere in the Review Medical Examination, it is required that
the Medical Officer who issued the Medical Fitness Certificate should be
specialized in the field. Learned counsel further argues that the Appellate
Authority has rejected the Appeal of the petitioner on further ground that
the photograph/ thumb impression of the petitioner was not attested, which
is again arbitrary and malafide as both, i.e. the photograph and the thumb
impression of the petitioner available on the Medical Fitness Certificate
have duly been attested by the concerned Medical Officer, who examined
the petitioner and issued the said Medical Fitness Certificate. Learned
counsel further argues that the action of the respondents in rejecting the
appeal preferred by the petitioner are totally arbitrary, biased and against the
terms of the recruitment scheme as the petitioner was examined and
declared medically fit by the Govt. Medical Practitioner and to that effect, a
Medical Fitness Certificate was also issued by him. Learned counsel further
argues that rejection of the claim of the petitioner is based on surmises and
conjectures inasmuch as candidature of the petitioner was rejected on
technical ground and not on merits which clearly shows the biasness and
pre-conceived notion of the respondents. Learned counsel further argues
that the issue involved in this case has already been decided by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2419 of 2020 and other
analogous cases which has been decided vide order dated 12.01.2021 and
the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the same and as such, the
petitioner also deserves the same benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places heavy reliance on
the reported judgment of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2393 of 2020 and other
analogous cases which has been affirmed upto the Division Bench and
argues that since the petitioner has qualified in all the events and even
declared successful, his candidature cannot be rejected on technical ground.
Learned counsel further argues and prays that respondents be directed to
constitute a Review Medical Board and thereafter, if the petitioner is found
to be medically fit, his candidature be considered since he has qualified and
declared successful in all the events.
Submissions of learned counsel for the Respondents
7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned senior counsel
for the respondents justifying the impugned order submits that rightly the
case of the petitioner for Review Medical Examination was rejected.
Learned senior counsel further argues that the Appellate Authority
examined RME Appeal in light of recruitment notification and uniform
guidelines issued by MHA vide UO No. A-VI-1/2014/Rectt (SSB) dated
20.05.2015. During the scrutiny of the RME Appeal, the appellate panel
found that "either photograph of candidate not attached or not attested by
Medical Officer in Form-3 (Medical Fitness Certificate) and/ or thumb
impression not attested". Further, for medical unfitness in DME not
attached (Form-01) and moreover, Specialist Opinion not obtained, due to
which panel could not ascertain the infirmities for which he has been
declared unfit and hence, the appeal of the petitioner has summarily been
rejected.
Findings of the Court
8. Having gone through the rival submission of the parties and from
perusal of the documents brought on record and the settled legal
propositions, it can safely be inferred that medical examination is
mandatory requirement for appointment but the same has to be followed
honestly and every policy decision involved with the same should be
transparent so that the candidates are fully satisfied. Even if there is any iota
of differences in the opinion, the same needs to be clarified.
9. In the instant case, there is difference in the medical opinion of
Selection Board and that of other Government Doctor from which medical
report has been obtained by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge vide
his order dated 08.08.2022, passed in W.P.(S). No. 3763 of 2020 has
observed as under:
"14. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the
report of Review Medical Board declaring the petitioners
to be unfit is hereby set aside and quashed. Since the
petitioners have duly qualified in all the examinations
conducted by the respondents, it is only on the ground of
medical unfitness, their cases have been rejected. It is a fit
case, in which, in the interest of justice, the respondents be
directed to constitute another medical board for re-
examination of the petitioners."
The said view of learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 13 of 2023.
10. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions and settled principle of
law, the impugned order dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition),
being devoid of any merit, is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to constitute a Review Medical Board
consisting of one Judicial Officer from the Judgeship of Ranchi and three
Doctors of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi. Upon
constitution of the Review Medical Board, a notice to that effect be given to
the petitioner to appear before the Review Medical Board on the scheduled
date and time fixed and thereafter, the Board will take a decision which will
be binding on both the parties. The said report of the Review Medical Board
shall not be a matter of fresh review.
12. Needless to say that if the report of the newly constituted Review
Medical Board is found to be in favour of the petitioner and if he is
otherwise found fit for appointment pursuant to Advt. No. F.No.-3/2/2017-
P&P-1 floated by the Staff Selection Commission, an offer of appointment
be issued to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
report of the Review Medical Board.
13. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
