Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Peeyush Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13170 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Employment and Service Law
Headnote
(B) Legal Examination and Review Protocol - The Court held that the opinion of a civilian hospital could not be entirely decisive over the military standards required for service fitness. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was initially declared unfit for service based on medical reasons, despite being found fit by a civilian hospital, leading to the need for further expert examination.
Findings of Court:
The court mandated the Military Hospital to assess the petitioner’s fitness, underscoring the importance of adherence to military medical standards in fitness evaluations.
Issues: The primary issue was whether external medical findings should override military standards in determining fitness for service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that military medical examinations should consider specialized military criteria for assessing fitness, as civilian processes may not align with those requirements.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions for further medical evaluation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's medical examination claims and unfitness (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's order for further medical evaluation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. disposal of petition with directions (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The petitioner had applied for the `Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination, 2019'.
2. The petitioner was declared unfit for appointment during the Detailed Medical Examination on the following grounds:-
i) Cubitus Valgus
ii) Right 4th toe deformity
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was thereafter referred to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as `JLN Hospital') for further examination. The petitioner contends that in such examination, the petitioner was found to be medically fit. The petitioner contends that inspite of the said report finding the petitioner to be medically fit, the petitioner was again declared unfit on the same grounds, that is, `cubitus valgus' and `right 4th toe deformity' by the Review Medical Examination Board.
4. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.12.2021, the respondents have produced before us the original medical record of the petitioner. The doctors who constituted the Review Medical Board are also present in the Court today.
5. Upon perusal of the medical record, we find that the petitioner was referred to JLN Hospital for an opinion from Orthopaedic on `cubitus valgus' and `right 4th toe deformity'. There is also a certificate dated 26.10.2021 issued by the JLN Hospital opining the petitioner to be fit orthopedically. It also records that the x-ray of the right foot is normal and so as the carrying angle.
6. The doctors present in Court explain that the examination conducted by the JLN Hospital cannot be accepted as the certificate does not mention the carrying angle in the report and in any case, the petitioner seems to have been examined from a civilian angle.
7. Be that as it may, as we have an opinion from the JLN Hospital which declares the petitioner to be orthopedically fit, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that petitioner should be examined by the Army R&R Hospital, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `R&R Hospital') for his alleged `cubitus valgus' and `right 4th toe deformity'. For this purpose, the respondent shall request the R&R Hospital to constitute a Board of doctors consisting of a specialist Orthopedic and give an appointment to the petitioner for being examined within a period of ten days from today. The report of the R&R Hospital shall be considered as final, with no party being allowed to challenge the same. The respondent shall act upon the appointment application of the petitioner in accordance with the report that is received from the R&R Hospital within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the report. The report received from the R&R Hospital shall also be shared with the petitioner.
8. The petition is disposed of with the above directions.
9. The original medical record of the petitioner is returned back to the respondents.
