Karnataka High Court
Asfak Hawaladar vs Central Reserve Police Force And Ors on 12 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200127 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ASFAK HAWALADAR S/O ABBAS ALI HAWALADAR
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. HONAWAD,
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
Digitally signed (RECRUITMENT BRANCH),
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF EAST BLOCK-07, LEVEL-4,
KARNATAKA SECTOR-01, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI - 110066.
2. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
BENGALURU GROUP CENTRE,
CRPF, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064.
3. REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION BOARD,
BY ITS MEMBER,
BENGALURU GROUP CENTRE,
CRPF, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI)
-2-
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED: 18.10.2022 IN W.P.NO.200130/2022 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS"
THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed by challenging the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2022
passed in W.P.No.200130/2022 (S-RES), wherein the writ
petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, the appellant is an applicant for selection of posts of
Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). The
appellant cleared the physical test and thereafter, Detailed
Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'DME') was
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
conducted, wherein he was declared as 'unfit'. The
appellant sought for Review Medical Examination (herein
after referred to as 'RME'). In the RME, the appellant was
declared as unfit on the ground of Deviated Nasal Septum
(herein after referred to as 'DNS'). The appellant got
himself examined from Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital,
Bengaluru and the report indicates that there is no DNS.
The appellant challenged the endorsement dated
29.09.2020 before this Court. The learned Single Judge
directed the respondents to get the appellant examined by
the independent medical board. The respondents
challenged the said order. The Co-ordinate Bench modified
the order of the learned Single Judge by directing the
appellant to appear before the CRPF Medical Board for
RME. The respondent No.3 once again declared the
appellant as 'unfit' as per Annexure-K dated 18.11.2021,
which was challenged before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Single Judge considering the pleading and
rival submissions has recorded the finding that the opinion
of CRPF Medical Board is in terms of guidelines prescribed
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
in the recruitment notification dated 21.07.2018, no fault
can be found in such opinion of the experts which is also in
compliance with the requirements of the guidelines and
dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant
is in appeal.
3. Sri. Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge
has committed grave error in dismissing the writ petition
filed by the appellant, without appreciating the guidelines
dated 31.05.2021 and clause (10) of the notification dated
21.07.2018. It is submitted that clause 10(f) of the
notification is contrary to the guidelines dated 31.05.2021.
The guideline - 9(3)(C)(i) provides that, minor DNS can
be accepted if there is no marked airway obstruction and
in the case of appellant, the DNS found was corrected by
surgery dated 24.08.2020 and thereafter, the authority in
RME ought to have examined the appellant and issue the
medical certificate and without doing so, the medical board
is of the opinion that the appellant has undergone
corrective surgery for DNS after the date of 'DME' on
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
28.01.2020. Hence, he was declared unfit. Such an
opinion of the medical board runs contrary to the
notification and guidelines in force, which has not been
properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
4. It is further submitted that the respondent-
authorities have appointed one Sri. Ramagoud Naik who
was also suffering from DNS, underwent corrective surgery
and in the RME dated 26.09.2020, it is observed that no
DNS and found him fit. He submits that the authority
cannot discriminate between similarly placed persons in
the process of selection. The respondent-authorities ought
to have conducted RME on the appellant and thereafter,
ought to have considered his candidature for appointment.
The opinion of the medical board in RME conducted on the
appellant is not on merits but found him unfit on the
ground that the appellant has undergone corrective
surgery which is contrary to the notification and the
guidelines in force. He further adds that the guidelines will
prevail over the notification and in support of his
contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
High Court of Delhi in the case of Pramit Singh vs.
Union of India and others1 and in the case of
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs.
Union of India and others2 and seeks to allow the
appeal.
5. Per contra, Sri. Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) supports the
order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the
standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and
Police Forces are much higher than the other forces. It is
submitted that this Court in W.A.No.200157/2021 has
provided an opportunity to the appellant for RME and the
experts on examination found that the appellant is unfit
and issued the certificate dated 18.11.2021. It is further
submitted that the recruitment notification dated
21.07.2018 indicates that if the candidate has undergone
surgery in between DME and RME for corrective measures
of unfitness will not be accepted and to be considered as
AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 2816 (W.P.(C) 8752/2018)
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
unfit and the authorities considering the same, has held
the appellant as unfit. Hence, the order of the learned
Single Judge does not call for any interference.
6. We have heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant, learned DSGI for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and meticulously perused the materials
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced and the
materials available on record.
7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that the appellant has applied for the selection to the post
of Constable (GD) in CAPF for the year 2018 as per the
notification dated 21.07.2018. The appellant was qualified
in the physical fitness test and he was called upon for the
DME. After examining the appellant, he was declared as
unfit for the reasons - a) knock-knee and b) DNS right
side. The appellant sought for RME, the RME was
conducted on 29.09.2020 as evident from Annexure-C and
in the said examination the appellant was declared as
'unfit' on the ground of DNS (moderate DNS with right
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
hypertrophy of interior turbinate). The appellant
challenged the endorsement dated 29.09.2020 in
W.P.No.226973/2020, wherein the learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to get the appellant examined by an
independent medical board preferably of a Government
hospital and obtain report and reconsider the candidature
of the appellant for the appointment to the post of
Constable (GD) CRPF.
8. The order of the learned Single Judge was
challenged by the respondent in W.A.No.200157/2021.
The Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.10.2021
modified the order of the learned Single Judge by directing
the appellant to appear before the CRPF Medical Board,
Bengaluru on 16.11.2021 and the respondents were
directed to conduct RME on the appellant and take
decision in the matter after opinion is given by the CRPF
medical report and if the appellant is found fit and eligible
for appointment, he shall be appointed and his seniority
shall be fixed in the batch he was qualified.
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
9. The appellant pursuant to the direction of the
Co-ordinate Bench referred supra got re-examined before
the CRPF Medical Board. The board on examination opined
that the candidate has undergone corrective surgery for
DNS on 24.08.2020 i.e., after the date of DME on
28.01.2020 and hence declared him unfit. To consider the
case of the appellant, it would be useful to refer to the
relevant clause 10 of the notification dated 21.07.2018
inviting application, which reads as under:
"(10) Duration of fitness for Post-operative cases.
If any candidate is operated before medical and
comes for medical examination to be conducted by
CAPF then minimum period that should be
completed after operation at the time of medical
(DME/RME as the case may be) for the fitness will
be considered as per the details given below:
(a) Body surface swelling, DNS, tonsillectomy
and nasal polypectomy: 1 month.
(b) Hydrocele: 3 months.
(c) Tympanoplasty: 4 months.
(d) Abdominal/ pelvic surgeries involving opening
of peritoneum, repairs of Hernia, varicocele
surgeries, surgery fro fistula-in-ano etc: 6
months.
- 10 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
(e) Above time will be considered at the time of
medical only and not after the due date of
medical.
(f) Any surgery conducted between the period of
DME & RME for corrective measure of
unfitness will not be accepted and be
considered as 'unfit'."
10. The aforesaid clause of the notification provides
a mechanism to examine the candidate undergone surgery
for DNS between DME and RME and such examination of
the candidate for RME shall be conducted after the date of
one month from the surgery. Clause (10)(f) of the
aforesaid clause runs contrary to main clause (10) and the
Revised Uniform Guidelines for Recruitment Medical
Examination in the Central Armed Police Forces and Assam
Rifles for GOs and NGOs dated 31.05.2021. The Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Pramit
Singh vs. Union of India and others referred supra has
considered the similar issue by providing an opportunity to
the candidate to appear before a Review Medical Board.
The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are
extracted herein below:
- 11 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
4. On the last date of hearing, we had requested
Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents
to obtain instructions from the department. Today,
learned counsel hands over the "Guidelines
Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed
Police Forces and Assam Rifles" issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
(Police Division-II), as revised as on May, 2015. A
perusal of the said Guidelines reveals that, Minor
Acceptable Defects has been listed in para 7 and
sub para (i) thereof states that, mild and moderate
DNS with both nasal airways patient may not be
rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
while declaring the petitioner as unfit at the time of
issuing the impugned memorandum dated
14.04.2018, the respondents had not specified as
to whether he was suffering from a mild or
moderate DNS and the observation made was
limited to mentioning that the petitioner was
suffering from DNS. She contends that, in any
event, the petitioner had undergone a surgery for
correction of DNS on 24.04.2018 and going the
very same Guidelines in Para 11 whereof, it has
been clarified that the duration for fitness for any
post operative cases relating to DNS and Nasal
Polypectomy, would be one month, the petitioner
ought to have been examined on expiry of one
month. She submits that in terms of the aforesaid
- 12 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
Guidelines, the petitioner would have been fit for
undergoing a Review Medical Board within one
month reckoned from 24.04.2018,, the date of his
surgery, i.e., by 23.05.2018 whereas the list of
non-selected candidates was declared by the
respondents, much later on 16.08.2018.
6. In view of the captioned Guidelines issued by the
respondents, we are of the opinion that the
respondents ought to have afforded an opportunity
to the petitioner to appear before a Review Medical
Board after 23.05.2018 i.e. on expiry of one month
after he had undergone a surgery for DNS, for
examining him qua the grounds mentioned in the
impugned memorandum dated 14.04.2018 and if
he was not found fit, only then turned down his
candidature. In our view, any rejection prior
thereto by refusing to grant him an opportunity to
appear before the Review Medical Board was not
justified or in consonance with the own Guidelines
laid down by the respondents."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. In view of the aforesaid observations of the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Pramit Singh vs. Union of India and others referred
supra, clause in the notification dated 21.07.2018 and the
guidelines dated 31.05.2021 issued by the Ministry of
- 13 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
Home Affairs, Government of India, we are of the
considered view that, the respondent-authorities have
committed an error in not reviewing medically the
candidature of the appellant by rejecting his candidature
as unfit, solely on the ground that the appellant has
undergone corrective surgery. We are of the opinion that
the learned Single Judge has not considered the effect of
the guidelines and clause of the notification which has
been interpreted by the Delhi High Court in the case
referred supra. Hence, the order of the learned Single
Judge is required to be interfered with.
12. We have also taken note of the guideline-7(i)
dated 31.05.2021 which provides that minor acceptable
defects i.e., mild and moderate DNS with both nasal
airways patient may not be rejected. Similarly, guideline-
9(C) of the said guidelines speaks about considering
candidature of the minor DNS. The very guidelines provide
a mechanism to consider the candidature of the applicants
for minor DNS. The clause (10) of the notification
contemplates one month's time for DME or RME post
- 14 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
surgery and similar clause is found in guideline-11 of the
guidelines dated 31.05.2021. In other words, if the
candidate has undergone surgery for DNS one month prior
to the DME, he is eligible for conducting DME. Similarly, if
the candidate has undergone corrective surgery of DNS
between DME and RME while conducting RME there must
be a gap of one month as per clause (10)(a) of the
notification dated 21.07.2018 and guideline-11 of the
guidelines dated 31.05.2021. However, clause (10)(f) runs
contrary to clause (10) as well as the guidelines dated
31.05.2021 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India.
13. We have also noticed that the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in WA.No.200157/2021 has permitted
fresh RME at CRPF Medical Board, Bengaluru. The CRPF
Medical Board, Bengaluru is duty bound to conduct RME as
per the guidelines dated 31.05.2021 which indicate that
RME shall examine candidate specifically for the
deficiencies for which the candidate has been declared
unfit. In the instance case, no such exercise has been
- 15 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
carried out by the CRPF Medical Board. Hence, it is in
violation of guidelines dated 31.05.2021. The interest of
justice would be met if the CRPF Medical Board
re-assesses the appellant for DNS and provides its opinion
as per the guidelines dated 31.05.2021.
14. It is a trite law that the notification for
appointment dated 21.07.2018 cannot run contrary to the
guidelines dated 31.05.2021, our view gain support from
the order of the Supreme Court in the case of
The Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs.
Union of India and others referred supra. We also
cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent-
authorities have permitted the similarly placed candidate
i.e., Ramagoud Naik to participate in RME after undergoing
corrective surgery and thereafter he was selected to the
post in question, which is evident from the memo dated
28.06.2024 filed along with the documents by the
respondent-authorities. Hence, the respondent-authorities
cannot now contend that the appellant is unfit without
conducting RME as directed by this Court in the earlier
- 16 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
round of litigation, on the ground that he has undergone
corrective surgery. In our considered view, the appellant
is required to be re-examined once again by the CRPF
Medical Board, Bengaluru with regard to DNS, without
taking note of the fact that he has undergone corrective
surgery.
15. We are of the further opinion that, if the CRPF
Medical Board on fresh RME on the appellant found fit, the
respondent-authorities are directed to consider the
candidature of the appellant for appointment to the post of
Constable (GD) CAPF, as per the rules and guidelines.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is allowed.
ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated
18.10.2022 passed in WP.No.200130/2022 is
set aside.
iii) The CRPF Medical Board, Bengaluru is directed
to re-examine the appellant with regard to DNS
- 17 -
WA NO.200127 OF 2023
without taking note of the fact that he has
undergone corrective surgery and issue
necessary report within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
iv) The respondents are directed to consider the
candidature of the appellant, if he found fit in
RME for the appointment to the post of
Constable (GD) CAPF, in accordance with law.
v) No orders to cost.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MCR
CT: PS
