Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
Prajna Sarathi Jena – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6077 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Medical Fitness - Petition for Quashing Medical Report and Review - Summary: The petitioner sought to quash the medical report declaring him unfit for a Head Constable position in CISF and requested a review. The court directed the RR Hospital, Delhi to constitute a Medical Board to assess the petitioner's eyesight, with the report being final and binding. If found fit, the petitioner would be allowed to join further selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a Head Constable position in CISF under the sports quota. After being declared unfit in the medical examination, the petitioner sought a review and presented conflicting medical fitness certificates from other institutions. The court directed the RR Hospital, Delhi to assess the petitioner's eyesight, with the report being final and binding.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the RR Hospital, Delhi to constitute a Medical Board to assess the petitioner's eyesight, with the report being final and binding. If found fit, the petitioner would be allowed to join further selection process.
Issues: Dispute over the petitioner's medical fitness for a Head Constable position in CISF under the sports quota.
Ratio Decidendi: The conflicting medical opinions led the court to direct the RR Hospital, Delhi to assess the petitioner's eyesight, with the report being final and binding.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by directing the RR Hospital, Delhi to constitute a Medical Board to assess the petitioner's eyesight, with the report being final and binding. If found fit, the petitioner would be allowed to join further selection process.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner prays as under:
(a) thereby quash the medical report dated 12.08.2022 and further review thereof dated 13.08.2022 whereby and where under the petitioner has been declared unfit without expressing any opinion regarding physical defect pointed out in both medical reports.
(b) may be pleased to direct the Respondent to consider his case for appointment to the post of Head Constable (General Duty) against sports quota in CISF in connection with the advertisement issued by the Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, after conducting eye test from independent Medical Authority/Board.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he applied for the examination for the post of Head Constable (General Duty) in CISF against Sports Quota and after scrutiny of the applications the respondents shortlisted the eligible candidates, wherein he was placed at Sl. No 96 in the said list. Subsequently, he was instructed to appear before the Medical Examination Board (DMC/RMC) and an Admit Card was issued to him on 30.07.2022 for appearing in Detailed Medical Examination on 12.08.2022. During Detailed Medical Examination, he was declared unfit due to Visual Acuity unaided (better eye and worse eye).
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for Review Medical Examination and as per the result of RME on 13.08.2023, he was declared medically unfit. Contrary to that when the petitioner approached before MJLRH, Cuttack, SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, AIIMS Bhubaneswar, he was issued medical fitness certificates dated 18.08.2022, 19.08.2022 & 23.08.2022, respectively, holding him physically fit for any duty. Further the medical fitness certificates was issued by Assistant Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, AIIMS dated 23.08.2022 whereby his eyes and color vision were found normal.
4. Since there are different medical opinions, therefore, without going into the controversy, we dispose of the present petition by directing the RR Hospital, Delhi to constitute a Medical Board and assess the petitioner's eye sight accordingly within four weeks. The respondents shall facilitate the petitioner to get medically examined.
5. As agreed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the report of the RR Hospital, Delhi shall be final and binding.
6. We hereby make it clear that in case the petitioner found medically fit, petitioner shall be allowed to join further selection process.
7. In view of above, present petition stands disposed of.
Conflicting medical opinions can lead to the court directing a specific medical assessment to resolve the dispute.
Medical examination standards for recruitment in police forces are stricter than civilian roles, and the findings of specialist medical boards must be upheld unless glaring inconsistencies are presen....
Discrepancies in medical reports are not grounds to overturn specialist evaluations in recruitment processes; standard fitness criteria for armed services are stricter than for civilian roles.
The court affirmed the necessity of fair re-evaluation in recruitment processes when discrepancies in medical fitness findings arise.
A candidate declared unfit in a medical examination for recruitment does not hold grounds to contest employment selection results, especially when approached belatedly after vacancies are filled.
The need for a conclusive medical assessment by a Medical Board to determine fitness for further selection process.
The court emphasized the stringent standards of physical fitness for the armed forces and police forces, and the finality of the recruitment procedure in the absence of exceptional circumstances warr....
The finality of medical reports and the stringent standards for physical fitness in armed forces and police forces.
Point of law: No good reason to discard joint opinion by three eye specialists merely because other eye-specialists on civilian side had given a different opinion to effect that there was no defect i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
