IMPORTANT POINT
The court highlighted the significance of due process and the requirement for a Specialist examination in determining medical fitness, as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). It balanced the delay in approaching the court with the interest of justice and directed a re-examination by a Review Medical Board with a Neurology Specialist.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R Devi, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC).

2. The present case has a chequered history and bereft of the details, the necessary facts which are required to be taken into consideration are narrated hereinbelow.

3. The facts projected in the petition are that he was appointed as a Rect. Barber in the Assam Rifles in the year 2001 and was sent to training at Dimapur. However, in October, 2001, he was discharged from his service along with about 90 other persons on medical grounds. The ground assigned so far as the petitioner is concerned is ‘Fine Tremors’ of the hands. The aforesaid orders of discharge were the subject matter of challenge in a number of writ petitions, including WP(C)/6721/2005 filed by the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2012 whereby a fresh Appellate Medical Board was directed to be constituted. The Court, however, made it clear that no observation was made on the inter-semerits. Subsequent thereto, an Appellate Medical Board was constituted which examined the petitioner and vide a communication dated 27.12.2012, the petitioner has been held to be unfit. The petitioner has also brought on record an order dated 26.09.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a number of writ appeals, including WA/153/2014 wherein the matters were remanded for fresh consideration on the ground that though those incumbents were held to be medically fit, they were not re-inducted in the service on the ground of over-aged.

4. Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner in the present case has been held to be unfit, such decision is not preceded by a due process recognized by law. It is submitted that the admitted ground of discharge on medical fitness is that the petitioner was having Fine Tremors of the hands. The learned counsel by referring to the SOP which has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents has submitted that the aforesaid ground can be related to the ground under Sl. No. (h) which is with regard to the mental and nervous instability. Reference has also been made to an order dated 15.09.2021 passed in this case wherein the aspect of requirement of examination by a Specialist (Neurologist) in the case of the petitioner was made. By referring to the note wherein the petitioner has been held to be unfit, learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that the Board was not having any Neurologist as a Specialist and the Specialist whose name and signature appear is of Medicine. Reference has also been made to the present SOP as per which, Tremors without organic cause has been declared to be minor acceptable defects.

5. Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel has also placed before this Court copies of number of orders passed in similarly situated cases wherein reliefs were granted to the incumbents with the liberty to hold fresh medical examination of those incumbents. The details of the orders are as follow:

i) WP(C)/2225/2016 (Ex. TC-62078 Rect/BB Rambir Vs. Union of India & Ors.);

ii) WP(C)/5172/2016 (Ex TC-62091 Rect/GD Satbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.); and

iii) Ex TC-M/371384 Rect/NA Sri Sant Lal Vs. Union of India).

6. Percontra, Ms. Devi, learned CGC has submitted that the initial induction of the petitioner was on the condition that he should be medically fit. When it was detected during the time of training that the petitioner was not medically fit, he was discharged from his service on 31.10.2001. The earlier round of litigation instituted by the petitioner, being WP(C)/6721/2005 which required re-examination by a fresh Medical Board was done upon which the petitioner was found to be unfit. The learned CGC has submitted that there is a vast distinction of facts regarding the present case and the cases cited by the petitioner inasmuch as in those cases, either the incumbents were found