Point of law: No good reason to discard joint opinion by three eye specialists merely because other eye-specialists on civilian side had given a different opinion to effect that there was no defect in visual acuity in respect of petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned review Medical Examination Report dated 10.08.2018, thereby declaring the petitioner to be unfit and to direct the State Medical Board consisting of eye specialists to conduct a medical examination of the petitioner and for a further direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable/General Duty in the Central Industrial Security Force.

3) An advertisement dated 24.01.2015 was issued by the Staff Selection Commission for “Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2015 for recruitment to the post of Constables (General Duty) in CAPFs i.e. BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had participated in the selection process and upon qualifying in the written as well as Physical Efficiency Test (PET for short), vide letter dated 27.04.2018, issued by the CISF Unit Nazira, the petitioner was offered appointment in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF in short) on probation for 2 year. On 15.06.2018, the petitioner was made to undergo CAPF Constable (GD) Medical Examination, 2015 and he was declared unfit due to the reason of substandard-distant vision(Lt6/12). The petitioner was informed that if he prefers to file an appeal against the finding of medical examination, he was advised to apply for review medical examination in prescribed form after obtaining medical certificate from Specialist Medical Officer of Government District Hospital. Accordingly, the petitioner was medically examined by the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer, Civil Hospital, Diphu and the doctor had opined to the effect that there was judgmental error in physical examination at the time of examination. The doctor had given report that visual acuity in right eye was 6/6 and in left eye it was 6/6 (P). The authorities had directed the petitioner to report to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi on 10.08.2018 to appear before Medical Board for Review Medical Examination. However, the finding dated 10.08.2018 by the Review Medical Examination conducted by 3 (three) doctor’s board was unfavourable to the petitioner as he was ”declared unfit due to defective distant vision both eyes”.

4) Thereafter, against the review medical board, by letter dated 13.09.2018 the petitioner had submitted an appeal before the Commandant, CISF, Nazira for re-examination. The petitioner had also got himself examined at a private eye hospital at Varanasi and the doctor had given eye check-up report dated 18.09.2018 to the effect vision of the petitioner in right eye and left eye was 6/6 without glasses. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 7416/2018 and this Court by order dated 19.12.2018, by recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the authorities had informed the petitioner that his case for re-examination was pending at the FHQ, New Delhi for administrative decision, which decision was awaited, as intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 09.11.2018 and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to take a decision in connection with the request of the petitioner for holding medical re-examination with further direction that the entire exercise be undertaken by the authorities within a period of 2 (two) months. The Chief Medical Officer (SG), CISF, RTC, Bhilai in the Office of the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bhilai, vide order dated 15.02.2019 by referring to MHA guidelines dated 09.09.2017, held that since the petitioner has availed the opportunity of being re-examined again by Review Medical Board hence, his request for re-examina