The final finding on fitness or unfitness is to be given by the Review Medical Board, and the word 'possibility' in the clause relating to medical review is of significance.

This is an application for condonation of 35 days delay in re-filing the review petition. It is stated by the learned counsel that by mistake he had attached the review petition with another file.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay is condoned.

Rev. Pet. 569/2012

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner had applied for recruitment as Head Constable (Min.) in the Border Security Force. Having cleared the written examination and physical test, the petitioner was called and examined medically on 28.11.2011. He was declared medically unfit on the ground of leucoderma vide memorandum issued on 28.11.2011.

3. The rules postulate that ordinarily there was no right to appeal, but the Government/Department on evidence placed before them, that there was a possibility of error of judgment in the decision of the medical authority, could allow re-examination by the Review Medical Board.

4. The review petitioner had thereafter approached and was examined in the RML Hospital, New Delhi on 1st December, 2011 by a specialist who had opined that the finding recorded by the medical officer/authority declaring the petitioner as unfit on account of leucoderma was an error of judgment. The petitioner was also declared medically fit. The medical certificate, however, further records that the “patient was having linecur stable vitligo over the side of the chest as such is a localized change does not include any systematic changes”.

5. This certificate was submitted to the respondents, with a request to constitute the Review Medical Board.

6. The respondents did not constitute a Review Medical Board, on the pretext and ground that this was not a case of error of judgment. This was not withstanding the medical certificate dated 1st December, 2011, to the contrary.

7. The petitioner had thereupon filed WP(C) no.3391/2012, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29th May, 2012 of which review is sought by the present application. Learned counsel for the respondents who was present on advance notice, had submitted before the Court on 29.05.2012 that the certificate dated 1st December, 2011 would not help and aid the petitioner, for he was suffering from another type of skin disease, namely linecur stable vitligo. The writ petition was dismissed for the reasons recorded in para 7 of the order dated 29th May, 2012, which reads as under:-

“(7) This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is not disputed that the petitioner produced a medical certificate wherein it is stipulated that the Leucoderma as opined by the Medical Board of the respondent was on account of an error of judgment, however, the same medical certificate also stipulates that the petitioner is suffering from another skin disease. Though the petitioner’s certificate does qualify the Vitiligo as localized, however, even such a localized Linecur stable vitiligo over side of chest disease does not make the petitioner medically fit according to the respondent’s standards. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that a person having Linecur stable vitiligo over side of chest disease, a localized disease which is a form of skin disease will be medically fit. If the certificate obtained by the petitioner from the specialist opines that the petitioner obtained by the petitioner from the specialist opines that the petitioner is suffering from skin disease, then the petitioner cannot claim that he should be medically examined by a ‘Review Medical Board’ to ascertain his medical fitness as his own certificate shows that he is medically unfit.”

8. On being asked, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the linecur stable vitligo is not one of the specified diseases mentioned in the negative list. It is stated that candidates suffering from chronic skin disease were not eligible and declared unfit.

9. Having considered the contentions raised we find that the