The judgment establishes the importance of relying on the opinion of the Forces' doctors for assessing medical fitness for service in the Central Armed Police Forces, emphasizing the stringent physical fitness standards for the duties involved.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 25th November 2019 issued by IG, ITBP and seeks directions to conduct Review Medical Board under the supervision of specialist doctors and upon clearing of the same, the petitioner be given joining letter to join as a Constable with all consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was found unfit in the first Medical Board on account of (i) Anal Tag, (ii) Blood Pressure 148/100, (iii) Overweight and (iv) Eyesight 6/9. He further states that the petitioner challenged the aforesaid findings before the Review Medical Examination Board.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the report of the Review Medical Board dated 04th October 2019, the petitioner's weight, eyesight as well as blood pressure were found within normal limits and no Anal Tag was found. However, he states that the petitioner was declared unfit for combatised service due to low pulse rate of 48 per minute.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide impugned letter dated 25th November 2019, the petitioner was informed that no appeal lies against the decision of the ITBP Review Medical Board.

6. He emphasises that the petitioner subsequently got himself examined in V.M.M.C & Safdarjung Hospital, Dr. RML Hospital, Lady Harding Medical College and Smt. SK Hospital, New Delhi where he was declared medically fit.

7. Per contra, Mr. Avnish Singh, learned counsel for the respondent states that the Review Medical Board comprising specialists, after repeatedly conducting ECG, has opined that the petitioner is suffering from Sinus bradycardia (RBBB) and is not fit for joining the ITBP.

8. He further states that the last offer letter was issued to the selected candidates on 21st December, 2019 and basic training of the batch was completed on 31st July, 2020.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that it is the Central Armed Police Forces (for short 'CAPF') doctors who are aware of the high standards of fitness required during the training and subsequent operations. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that both training and operations in CAPF, in particular ITBP, are extremely demanding in terms of medical fitness of a candidate and a private Doctor or a Doctor working in Government hospital may not be in a position to comment on the required medical standards in the CAPF.

10. A coordinate Division Bench of which one of us (Justice Asha Menon) was a member, in judgment titled KM. Priyanka Vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) 10783/2020 decided on 21st December, 2020 has held as under:-

"8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India,2020 SCCOnLineDel 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India,2020 SCCOnLineDel 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India,2020 SCCOnLineDel 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India,2020 SCCOnLineDel 924, held that once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces. In fact, the case of Priti Yadav (supra) also related to 'cubital valgus'. It is also to be noted that the specialists that the petitioner had consulted had also found that the petitioner suffered from 'cubital valgus' and therefore, the findings by the Medical Boards