The court held that military medical standards prevail, and unanimous medical findings render external opinions irrelevant regarding an applicant's fitness for service.

Headnote:(A) No specific laws cited - Medical fitness for appointment - Applicant sought to set aside a medical report declaring him unfit for a police position, raising concerns over a split opinion among doctors. Court found the applicant medically unfit based on unanimous expert opinion determining the presence of a non-healed ulcer. (Paras 4, 11, 12)

(B) Medical examination standards - Court reaffirmed that the standards for physical fitness for armed and police forces are more stringent than for civilian employment, and opinions from military doctors prevail over other medical assessments. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a former serviceman, applied for a police position after sustaining injuries from a minor accident and was declared unfit in a medical examination due to a non-healed ulcer.

Findings of Court:
The Court rejected the petition, stating that the unanimous medical opinion from official doctors confirmed the applicant's unfitness.

Issues: The main questions included the validity of the medical examination and the reliance on external medical reports.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of opinions from military doctors regarding fitness standards and deemed the unanimous medical findings sufficient.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) --The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the report dated 03.11.2021 of the Review Medical Examination (in short, `RME') declaring the petitioner to be medically unfit for appointment. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct his RME again in view of the opinion and report of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Dr. RML Hospital') which found the petitioner fit for appointment, and to further allow him to join as a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement for the `Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Force in CISF Examinations, 2019', the petitioner had applied for the post of Sub- Inspector in the Delhi Police. Prior to this, the petitioner had served in the Indian Navy as a Commando and Diver for twenty-one years and took voluntary retirement in 2016 due to personal issues.

3. The petitioner had appeared for and cleared Stage-I as well as Stage-II of the recruitment process and was declared provisionally qualified for appearing in the Detailed Medical Examination (in short, `DME'). The petitioner, however, met with a minor motor accident prior to the conduct of his DME and sustained injuries, including on his right inguinal region.

4. In the DME, vide report dated 27.10.2021, the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit for appointment on two grounds, namely, 'non-healed ulcer (4x4 cm) over below the right inguinal region' and 'scar over left anterior and distal forearm'.

5. Aggrieved by the result of the DME, the petitioner applied for his RME. The report of the RME dated 03.11.2021 declared the petitioner to be medically fit on the ground of 'scar over left Distal forearm (split opinion)', however, the petitioner was again declared medically unfit on the ground of 'non-healed ulcer- (split opinion)'.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the declaration of petitioner being medically unfit was on the basis of a `split' opinion. He submits that owing to the split opinion amongst the doctors conducting the RME, the petitioner ought to be given the benefit of doubt and be re-examined by an independent board of doctors and on the basis of the report, if found fit, be allowed to join the Delhi Police. He also places reliance on the report of Dr. RML Hospital, wherein the doctor after the observation and verification of the test results of the petitioner, had found the ulcer in the right inguinal region to have healed and as not contagious.

7. This Court, vide its order dated 20.01.2022, had directed the learned counsel for the respondents to produce the original medical record of the petitioner on the next date of hearing. The doctors who had medically examined the petitioner during his RME stage were also directed to join the proceedings by way of online video link.

8. In pursuance of the above direction, Dr. Amit Bhatnagar, CMO (SG), Dr. Anant Kumar, CMO (SG) and Dr. Amiteshwar Prasad, SMO, who had conducted the RME of the petitioner, have joined the court proceedings by way of online link.

9. Dr. Bhatnagar submitted that at the RME stage, while the petitioner was declared `fit' on the orthopaedic side, that is, for 'scar over left anterior and distal forearm'; however, was declared medically unfit by a specialist surgeon posted at the Base Hospital, ITBP, Tigri for 'non-healed ulcer over below the inguinal region'.

10. Upon being inquired about the `split' opinion, it was informed to the Court that there the opinion was unanimous based on the opinion of the specialist surgeon and the confusion has arisen due to wrongly typed report annexed with the petition. We have also perused the photocopy of the RME report annexed with the petition and its purported typed copy also annexed with the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document