Patna High Court
Subham Kumar vs The Union Of India on 17 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8473 of 2020
======================================================
Subham Kumar, S/o Sudarsan Singh, Resident of Village- Seonan, P.S.-
Korauna, District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, New
Delhi
2. The Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary
3. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Central Region,
4. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Block-7,
Level-14, Section-01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi
5. The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna Bihar,
6. The Dy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Mokamaghat,
Patna, Bihar
7. The Medical Officer, C.M.O. G.C., Central Reserve Police Force,
Mokamaghat, Patna, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the UOI : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG
For the SSC : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, ASG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-02-2021
The matter has been listed today for consideration
through video conferencing.
2. The petitioner is an applicant for appointment as
Constable (GD) in the respondent-Central Reserve Police Force.
He was found unfit at the Detailed Medical Examination
(DME). The cause of unfitness was stated as "distant vision,
defective colour vision and cubitusvalgus". In terms of the
process of selection, the petitioner made his application for
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021
review medical examination. The same was accompanied along
with a fitness certificate, issued by the Chief Medical Officer,
Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad (Bihar). The appeal along with such
certificate was only seeking a review medical examination,
which has been rejected by a communication dated 24.03.2020,
issued by the Respondent No.6-Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Group Centre, CRPF as the fitness certificate of
concerned field Specialist was not attached. The authority has
insisted upon the fitness certificate being issued by a Specialist
of the concerned field in which the physical unfitness has been
reported at the Detailed Medical Examination, as the same was
a requisite in terms of the process of selection.
3. It is not disputed by learned counsel representing
the Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission
(Respondents No. 1 and 2) that the same controversy which this
application involved, was involved in CWJC No. 8370 of 2020
(Vikash Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors.). The said writ
application has been disposed of by an order of this Court dated
13.01.2021, a copy of which has been presented at the time of
hearing of this case. It appears from the aforesaid order that
arising out of the same selection process, which is the
subject-matter of present proceeding, a writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021
application was filed before Allahabad High Court giving rise to
Writ-A No. 5049 of 2020 (Rupesh Kumar vs. Union of India)
in which following order was passed :-
"The submission of learned
counsel for the Union of India that Dr. Syed
Naushad Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent,
Government Hospital, Jamui who certified
that two of the petitioners were not suffering
from High BP/Hypertension was not
competent to issue the same as he is not a
cardiologist, has also no force. The
qualifications of Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad
are not in dispute. He has done Masters in
Surgery and being a general surgeon in a
government hospital, he was competent
enough to examine the petitioners and
certify that they were not suffering from
hypertension. Under the recruitment
scheme, as noted above, the only evidentiary
value of his certificate is in formation of
prima facie opinion that there could be an
error of judgment on part of the medical
officer who examined the candidate in the
first instance to warrant acceptance of the
appeal for review medical examination of
the petitioners. In the review medical
examination, the petitioners will be
subjected to medical examination by expert
doctors. In case the petitioners were really
not suffering from the ailments/
shortcomings pointed out during the initial
medical examination, they would succeed.
On the other hand, if they do suffer from the
ailments/shortcomings, they would be
discarded. There is no right of further
appeal against the decision of the review
medical board. In case the certificates
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021
furnished by the petitioners are relied upon
at this stage, the respondents would not
suffer except that they shall have to hold a
review medical examination. On the other
hand, if the petitioners really do not suffer
from any ailment/shortcoming, as alleged,
but their appeal for review medical
examination is rejected at the very threshold
on the above ground, they would suffer
irreparable loss and injury. In all events,
therefore, the appeals preferred by the
petitioners for a review medical
examination should not be dismissed in the
manner as has been done by the
respondents."
4. Taking into account the fact that the decision of the
Allahabad High Court in Rupesh Kumar (supra) arose out of
the same selection process, the coordinate Bench of this Court
disposed of the writ application vide order dated 13.01.2021
(Vikash Kumar) (supra) in following terms :-
"14. Having distinguished the
instant case with that of CWJC No 8698 of
2020, this Court would allow the relief to
the petitioner for the reason that similar
relief to candidates in the same process of
recruitment has been allowed by the
Allahabad High Court in the case of
Rupesh Kumar (supra), which has not been
assailed by the respondent authorities
before the higher Court and pursuant to
which, the respondent Authorities
themselves are allowing the same relief to
the candidate in another State.
15. Rejection of the petitioner's
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021
appeal for Review Medical Exam
communicated under order dated
20.03.2019 by the respondent No 6 is
quashed.
16. The writ petition is allowed.
17. The respondents are directed
to constitute a Review Medical Board for
re-examination of the petitioner within a
period of one (01) week from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
5. Following the said decision in the case of Vikas
Kumar (supra), at least five more cases have been decided on
the same lines, details of such cases are as follows :
(i) CWJC No.8126 of 2020 (Shashi Ranjan Prakash
@ Shashi Ranjan v. The Union of India & Ors.) disposed of on
12.02.2021.
(ii) CWJC No.8256 of 2020 (Shashikant Kumar v.
The Union of India & Ors.) disposed of on 12.02.2021.
(iii) CWJC No.8918 of 2020 (Amarjeet Yadav v. The
Union of India & Ors.) disposed of on 12.02.2021.
(iv) CWJC No.8919 of 2020 (Ravi Kumar v. The
Union of India & Ors.) disposed of on 12.02.2021.
(v) CWJC No.8587 of 2020 (Jay Prakash Kumar v.
The Union of India & Ors.) disposed of on 03.02.2021.
6. This writ application is accordingly disposed of
with the same directions and observations as made in case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.8473 of 2020 dt.17-02-2021
Vikash Kumar (supra). Consequently, the impugned decision,
whereby the petitioner's appeal for review medical board has
been rejected, stands quashed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
PNM
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N.A.
