Repeated confirmations of medical fitness from multiple boards supersede initial unfitness declarations, emphasizing fair procedural standards in recruitment.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Refusal of Employment - The petitioner sought issuance of appointment letter for the post of Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force after being declared medically fit post-re-examinations, contending rejection based on unsubstantiated grounds of alleged concealment during medical checks. (Paras 1-21)

(B) Medical Examination Standards - Emphasizing that reports from multiple Medical Boards cannot be disregarded in favor of initial findings, particularly when divergent opinions exist regarding medical fitness. The purpose of Appeal Medical Boards is to rectify potential mistakes originating from the Detailed Medical Examination. (Paras 17-18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a post with the Railway Protection Force, underwent medical examinations, was initially declared unfit but subsequently found fit by different Medical Boards. Despite this, her candidature was rejected on tenuous grounds.

Findings of Court:
The court directed a fresh examination by a specialist board at a military hospital, stipulating that the outcome would be final, ensuring the process is completed expeditiously.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the repeated medical assessments carried sufficient weight against the initial unfitness declaration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the repeated confirmations of fitness from various Medical Boards hold more weight than initial findings, establishing the importance of thorough and fair assessment in recruitment processes.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for a fresh examination by an independent board.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's application for si-rpf position. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. medical examinations and fitness declarations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. counsel argues against arbitrary rejection. (Para 12 , 15 , 16)
4. court seeks clarification via medical records. (Para 13 , 14)
5. court orders independent examination. (Para 17 , 18)
6. final decision on independent examination results. (Para 19 , 20)
7. petition disposed with directions. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to immediately/forthwith issue the appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Sub- Inspector/Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as `SI- RPF'). The petitioner further prays that the Medical Examination dated 06.07.2019 of the Railway Hospital, Lucknow be ignored /quashed in view of the subsequent medical re-examination dated 15.11.2019, 26.11.2019 and 17.12.2020 conducted by the Railways itself.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in February, 2018, the recruitment for the post of SI/RPF was centrally advertised by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India by way of employment notice No.SI/RPF-02/2018. The petitioner applied for the said post and was declared to have passed the written examination, achieving the desired cut-off marks. The petitioner was thereafter directed to report to Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner /RPF/NR at DRM/NR Officer, Hazratganj, Lucknow on 05.07.2019 for conduct of the petitioner's Detailed Medical Examination (in short, `DME') in `BEE- ONE' category.

3. In such DME, the petitioner was declared unfit for `substandard vision (BE)', recording the same as 6/60 and 6/60.

4. The petitioner applied for medical re-examination along with a fitness certificate issued by the Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi.

5. That while the above application of the petitioner was pending consideration, the petitioner had also applied for the post of Constable in the RPF pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2018 and was selected against the said post. The petitioner underwent a medical examination for the said post.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of her medical examination for the post of Constable, the petitioner informed the Medical Board that she had been declared unfit for the post of SI/RPF. The petitioner was thereafter made to write on her application that she had not undergone any corrective eye operation. The petitioner duly complied with the said condition and only thereafter, on examination, she was declared to be medically fit in the `BEE-ONE' medical category, on 03.09.2019. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Constable/RPF.

7. On her examination conducted before the Appeal Medical Board (in short `AMB') for the post of SI-RPF, the respondents appointed a Medical Board consisting of Specialist Ophthalmologist at Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `NRCH'). The said AMB in its report dated 15.11.2019 declared the petitioner to be medically fit in `BEE-ONE' category.

8. The petitioner was thereafter referred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `AIIMS') for ruling out the petitioner having undergone Kerotorefractive, or LASIK, surgery. AIIMS, by its report dated 26.11.2019, opined that there was no evidence of the petitioner having undergone any LASIK Surgery.

9. The petitioner's appeal was thereafter considered and on being examined by a Special Ophthalmic Board of the NRCH on 29.01.2020, the petitioner was again declared fit in `BEE-ONE' category with visual acuity of 6/9 and 6/9 in both eyes.

10. On the recommendation of the Chief Health Director, a board of seven doctors was thereafter constituted to examine the petitioner at Ambala. The said board in its report dated 17.12.2020 again declared the petitioner to be medically fit in `BEE-ONE' medical category for the post of SI/R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document