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 present.

JUDGMENT

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

1. The present petition has been filed seeking rectification of medical reports of the Review Medical Examination (in short, 'RME') dated 11.11.2021 by accepting the 'Fitness' Report dated 09.09.2021 given by the Medical Officer (Eye Surgeon) of District Civil Hospital, Sonepat.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Head Constable (GD) under the sports quota in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, 'CISF'), the petitioner preferred an application for being considered for the said post. The petitioner is a national-level wrestler and has participated in several National, State and Zonal-level wrestling competitions.

3. Upon clearing the document-verification process, the petitioner was asked to appear for his Detailed Medical Examination (in short, 'DME') at CISF 5th RB, Ghaziabad, Indirapuram, Shipra Sun City, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF 5th RB') on 03.09.2021. Vide letter dated 04.09.2021, the petitioner was issued a rejection slip for medically unfit candidates, informing the petitioner that he had been declared medically unfit on two grounds, namely, `Defective vision (Rt) eye- 6/9' and `Deviated Nasal Septum (DNS)'.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the finding of the DME and underwent his RME at CISF 5th RB. Vide the impugned report, the petitioner was found to be fit on the ground of `Deviated Nasal Septum (DNS)' but was found to be unfit on the ground of `Defective distant vision (Rt) eye- 6/12'.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the certificate of medical fitness issued to the petitioner by the Medical Officer (Eye Surgeon), District Civil Hospital, Sonepat, wherein the petitioner had been found to have a 6/6 vision in both eyes. He submits that there is a discrepancy in the reports of the DME and the RME, with the DME recording the vision of the petitioner as 6/9 (Rt) and 6/6 (Lt), while the RME records the same as 6/12 (Rt) and 6/6 (Lt). He submits that in view of the inconsistent results of the two medical examinations, an independent board comprising of ophthalmologists should be constituted to re-examine the petitioner and if found fit, offer recruitment against the notified vacancies in the sports quota.

6. This Court, vide its order dated 03.01.2022, had directed the respondents to produce the medical record of the petitioner before the next date of hearing. The Court had further directed the doctor who had conducted the RME of the petitioner to join the proceedings by way of an online video link on the same date.

7. Dr. Nilay Jain, who was the ophthalmologist and who had conducted the RME of the petitioner, has joined the proceedings by way of an online video link in pursuance of the last order. Dr. Jain explained that the doctor conducting the DME of the petitioner is not a specialist ophthalmologist, while the RME was conducted by an 'Eye Board' constituted by the respondents and consisted of specialist ophthalmologists, including himself. He submits that there can be some minor variation in the findings of the DME and the RME in the present case, however, complete procedure was followed while conducting the RME proceedings for the petitioner.

8. We have considered the submissions made. In the present case, the RME of the petitioner with respect to his eyesight was conducted by a team comprising of three ophthalmologists who found the petitioner to be unfit on the