Point of Law: Service Law - Eligibility Criteria - Indian Army - All Ex-Servicemen are required to pass the written test and fulfil the physical standards prescribed for direct recruits for recruitment of Sub- Inspector/Assistant Sub-Inspector, as the case may be. They should also pass the medical standards prescribed for direct recruits.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. On 7th April, 2021, when this petition first came up before us, inter-alia the following order was passed:-

“3. The petition impugns the order dated 12th January, 2021 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of O.A. No. 42/2021 preferred by the petitioner. The said OA was preferred, impugning the denial of selection as Sub Inspector (Direct Entry) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)/Delhi Police/Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), in the recruitment process held in the year 2018, on the ground of being medically unfit. According to the Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board which examined the petitioner, the petitioner is a case of “old facture of shaft (Lt) femur with plates and screw in situ resulting in cortical expansion with scoliosis.”

4. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the findings of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board are inconsistent with the findings of the civil hospital in which the petitioner got himself examined, a case for referring the petitioner for independent opinion is made out.

5. The aforesaid argument has not found favour with this Court in a catena of judgments. Reference may be made to Priti Yadav vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC Online Del. 951, Akash Sharma vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/2069/2020, Dhiraj Milind Dhurve vs. Union Public Service Commission, MANU/DE/1093/2020, Jonu Tiwari vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1524/2020 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13492/20 preferred where-against was dismissed on 17th December, 2020], Nishant Kumar vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1486/2020, Sharvan Kumar Rai vs. Union of India, 2020 SCC Online Del. 924 and Vani Vishwanathan vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1678/2020.

6. The counsel for the respondent no. 1 Union of India appearing on advance notice states that the petitioner has neither impleaded any of CAPFs nor CISF.

7. On enquiry, it is stated that the Nodal Agency for conducting the examination for the year 2018 was Border Security Force (BSF).

8. BSF is impleaded as respondent No. 5 to this petition. Notice of the petition be issued to Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Advocate who otherwise appears for BSF. The Court Master to telephonically inform him to appear with the manual for medical examination of the subject examination.

9. List on 15th April, 2021.”

2. Today, Mr. Sabharwal, Advocate appears for the respondent no. 1 Union of India and seeks time to file affidavit.

3. As requested by us in the aforesaid order, Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Advocate also appears and has drawn our attention to Clause 11(1) of the ‘Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles’ as revised in May 2015 (Medical Manual) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division-II) and Clause 11 titled MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS whereof, in Sub-Clause (1) thereof provides as under:

“(1) Any evidence of implants in situ anywhere in body will lead to rejection.”

4. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner has implants, in the form of plates and screws as aforesaid, in his body, inserted/implanted to join the fracture of his femur bone.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Medical Fitness Certificate dated 15th April, 2020, which has been sent to us via email, certifying that the fracture is well united and consolidated.

6. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not in view of the aforesaid criteria/standard stipulated in the Medical Manual governing the medical tests/examinations to which direct recruits are subjected, no fault can be found with the rejection of the petitioner by the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board, on having implants in his body inasmuch as the Medical Manual does not provide for any exception in cases, where the implants have already served their purpose viz. of joining the bones and which fracture has healed.

7.