IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Suraj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10120 of 2023 & CM Appls. 39165-67 of 2023
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Medical Examination - Quashing of Detailed Medical Examination Result - The court set aside the findings of the Review Medical Board due to non-compliance with guidelines and directed the constitution of a fresh Review Medical Board in accordance with the guidelines dated 31.05.2021.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the Detailed Medical Examination result and the Review Medical Examination due to rejection on the grounds of hypertension and tachycardia.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Review Medical Board did not follow the prescribed guidelines for candidates rejected on the grounds of hypertension and tachycardia, and therefore set aside their findings and directed the constitution of a fresh Review Medical Board.
Issues: Non-compliance with medical examination guidelines, rejection on the grounds of hypertension and tachycardia.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the guidelines for medical examination were not followed, the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Board cannot be accepted, and directed the constitution of a fresh Review Medical Board in accordance with the guidelines.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by setting aside the findings of the Review Medical Board and directing the constitution of a fresh Review Medical Board within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the Detailed Medical Examination result dated 08.06.2023 and the Review Medical Examination dated 09.06.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of `hypertension' and `Tachycardia'. It has also been contended that "the Revised Uniform Guidelines for review in medical examination in Central Arms Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs" dated 31.05.2021 have not been followed in this regard.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
5. Reference may be had for the guidelines prescribed for the Review Medical Board which, inter-alia, reads as under:
"(e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should have been admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient in nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-Ray and electro-cardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc. tests should also be carried out."
6. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been rejected on the ground of hypertension and tachycardia. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was not hospitalized by the Review Medical Board prior to giving final opinion. The Medical Board, as per the guidelines, should have ascertained as to whether the rise in blood pressure was transient in nature due to excitement, etc. or whether it was due to an organic disease, as required by the guidelines.
7. Since the guidelines have clearly not been followed, the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Board cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the findings of the Review Medical Board are set aside. The respondents are directed to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board which shall examine the petitioner, inter-alia, in accordance with the guidelines dated 31.05.2021.
8. The Review Medical Board be constituted within a period of two weeks from today with at least four days' advance notice to the petitioner.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. It would be open to the petitioner to avail of any further remedies, if agreed by the decision of the medical board.
Non-compliance with medical examination guidelines renders the opinion of the Review Medical Board unacceptable.
Failure to follow guidelines for medical examination can lead to the setting aside of findings and the direction to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board.
Failure to follow medical examination guidelines can result in the setting aside of the examination findings and the direction to constitute a fresh examination board.
Failure to follow guidelines for medical examination can lead to setting aside of the findings of the Review Medical Board and direction to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board.
Non-compliance with guidelines for review in medical examination led to the rejection of the petitioner on the ground of hypertension without proper examination and hospitalization, resulting in the ....
Non-compliance with medical examination guidelines led to the setting aside of the Review Medical Board's findings and the direction to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board in accordance with the ....
Non-compliance with prescribed medical examination guidelines can lead to the setting aside of the medical board's findings and the direction to constitute a fresh board for re-examination.
Compliance with medical examination guidelines is essential for rendering a valid opinion on a candidate's fitness.
When the experts in field have opined against the petitioners, the Court would not be justified in sitting over as an appellate authority against the opinion formed by the experts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.