IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Shailly Upadhyay - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3157 of 2024 & CM APPL. 12988 of 2024
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Recruitment - Medical Examination - Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles - 5. General Examination h. Should not have any obvious old/mal united fracture of bones. 10. Investigations: c) Chest X-ray PA ix) Evidence of fracture, with features of mal-union, non-union or functional disability - The court discussed the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, highlighting the provisions related to the examination of fractures and mal-union, and the relevance of chest X-ray in determining functional disability. The court emphasized the specialized expertise of the medical boards and the limited scope for interference in matters of recruitment based on medical conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in Sashastra Seema Bal and was declared unfit due to health issues identified during medical examinations. The petitioner sought quashing of the medical examination results and a fresh examination before an independent board.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was declared unfit by specialized medical boards based on the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination, and there was no scope for interference in the medical assessment. The court dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's fitness for the post of Constable (GD) based on the medical examination results and the relevance of the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in determining fitness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the specialized expertise of the medical boards and the provisions of the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination to determine the petitioner's fitness for the post. The court emphasized the limited scope for interference in matters of recruitment based on medical conditions.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J. (Oral) - On 21.10.2023, a notification was issued by the respondents inviting applications from sports persons for the post of Constable (General Duty[Hereinafter referred to as `GD'.]) in Group-'C' non-gazetted (Non-Ministerial) in Sashastra Seema Bal[Hereinafter referred to as `SSB'.] , for which the petitioner applied.
2. On 30.12.2023, after initial documentation and other requisite tests, the petitioner passed the Physical Standard Test[Hereinafter referred to as `PST'.]. Later, on 02.01.2024, the petitioner underwent a Detailed Medical Examination (DME), memorandum qua which was passed on 03.01.2024, which revealed health issues, including perforation in the right ear, drooping left shoulder, malunited left clavicle shaft fracture, hallux valgus in both feet, and abnormal epidermal cells.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent a Review Medical Examination on 04.01.2024 before the Review Medical Board[Hereinafter referred to as `RMB'.], which declared the petitioner unfit due to the malunited left clavicle shaft fracture with dropping of left shoulder on 10.01.2024.
4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner visited Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where a Doctor opined that despite the dropping of her left shoulder, she was fit for all physical activities, and the dropping of the shoulder would not impact working conditions.
5. Hence, the petitioner vide the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the memorandum dated 03.01.2024 and review medical board order dated 10.01.2024 and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for a fresh medical examination before an independent board set up by the respondents in consonance with the MHA Medical Policy of 2015.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the guidelines for recruitment medical examinations in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, revised as on May 2015, which mentions the dropping of shoulders as acceptable minor defects in the body, submits that the health issues identified in the memorandum dated 03.01.2024, have never interfered during the entire athletic career of the petitioner and the same was opined by the doctor at the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
7. Lastly, relying upon judgements of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10269 of 2022 titled as Ayush Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No.1759 of 2021 titled as Sachin Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, and W.P(C) No.17612 of 2022 titled as Gaurav Baisoya vs. Union of India and Other, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled to another chance to undergo medical examination for successfully passing the procedural aspects and to be appointed as a Constable (GD).
8. Per contra, learned Panel Counsel for UOI, without filing any counter affidavit, relying upon the `Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles'[Hereinafter referred to as `Guidelines'.] dated May, 2015 Manual submits that both the Detailed Medical Examination[Hereinafter referred to as `DME'.] and the RMB constituted by the respondents comprise of specialised experts in their fields who are the final Medical Authority for determining the standard of recruitment of any candidate like the petitioner herein. It is under these circumstances that he lastly submits that in matters involving adjudication of medical condition of any candidate like the petitioner for recruitment, there is hardly any scope for interference by us.
9. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for all the parties and have also gone through the documents on record.
10. Before proceedings to adjudicate on the merits of this petition, we find that the petitioner herein, admittedly, was first declared medically `Unfit' in the first round by the DME Board on 03.01.2024 and was yet again declared `Unfit' by the RMB on 10.01.2024, both times due to `malunited left clavicle shaft fracture with dropping
Where appointment order has been issued and the petitioner had accepted the same by reporting for duty, subsequent medical examination report cannot make the petitioner ineligible for appointment.
The court's limited grounds for judicial intervention in administrative decisions and the importance of relevant considerations in such decisions.
Candidates must exhaust all available remedies within the recruitment process before seeking judicial intervention, and the findings of Medical Boards in recruitment processes are generally upheld un....
The right to employment is a constitutional guarantee that must be upheld, ensuring candidates are treated fairly in recruitment processes.
The finality of the R&R Hospital's report in determining the petitioner's fitness for duty.
The opinion of a competent Medical Board is crucial in determining the fitness of a candidate for appointment to a post, and the appointing authority ought to reconsider its earlier decision in light....
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.