2020 Supreme(All) 970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
Rupesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondents
Writ -A No. – 5049, 5181, 5558, 5654 of 2020
Decided On : 17-09-2020

Point of Law: main provision in the Recruitment Scheme providing for the remedy of review medical examination only speaks of medical certificate from Government District Hospital or above, to be annexed with the appeal. The medical certificate annexed with the appeal shall be evidence of possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of initial medical board/recruiting medical officer, who had examined the candidate in the first instance

Headnote:

Service Laws – Appointment – Petitioners had appeared in the recruitment for the post of Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018. – Under the recruitment scheme, the candidates were to apply online. – It was mandatory to indicate in the online application form Centre from where the candidate desires to take examination. – The petitioners accordingly applied online and in their application form, they preferred to appear from Centres located in the State of Bihar. – This was apparently for the reason that all the petitioners are domicile of the State of Bihar. – The job of holding a computer based examination for shortlisting the candidates was assigned to the Staff Selection Commission. – Under Clause 8 of the Recruitment Scheme, the entire State of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh fell under the jurisdiction of the Central Region of the Staff Selection Commission. It is clear from the document filed as Annexure RA-1 to Writ Petition No.5049 of 2020 that the Central Region fell under the jurisdiction of the Regional Office of the Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad (Prayagraj). – The petitioners appeared in the computer based examination from different centres located in the State of Bihar. – The respondents shortlisted the candidates for next stage of recruitment based on the scores in the computer based examination. – The petitioners were successful in proceeding to the next stage i.e. physical efficiency test/physical standard test. – Those candidates who were successful in clearing these stages were shortlisted for detailed medical examination. – The petitioners being successful therein were called for detailed medical examination by a medical board. – The petitioners duly got themselves medically examined by the medical board. – However, all of them were informed by the Chief Medical Officer (SG)/ Commandant that they were found unfit due to various reasons and if they wish to challenge the findings of medical examination, it was open to them to apply for review medical examination in enclosed Form No.2 alongwith demand draft of Rs.25. – The application should be accompanied by medical certificate from medical practitioner (specialist medical officer of Government District Hospital and above) as per Form No.3. – All the petitioners applied for review medical examination alongwith fitness certificate of medical practitioners from Government hospitals. All the appeals have been rejected on identical ground “medical fitness certificate of concerned field specialist not attached”. – Aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondents in declining to entertain their appeal for review medical examination, the present batch of petitions has been filed. – The petitioners have sought quashing of the communication informing them that their appeal for review medical examination could not be entertained for the above reason and have also prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to conduct their review medical examination. –

Finding of the Court:

Submission of learned counsel for the Union of India that Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent, Government Hospital, Jamui who certified that two of the petitioners were not suffering from High BP/Hypertension was not competent to issue the same as he is not a cardiologist, has also no force. – The qualifications of Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad are not in dispute. – He has done Masters in Surgery and being a general surgeon in a government hospital, he was competent enough to examine the petitioners and certify that they were not suffering from hypertension. – Under the recruitment scheme, as noted above, the only evidentiary value of his certificate is in formation of prima facie opinion that there could be an error of judgment on part of the medical officer who examined the candidate in the first instance to warrant acceptance of the appeal for review medical examination of the petitioners. – In the review medical examination, the petitioners will be subjected to medical examination by expert doctors. – In case the petitioners were really not suffering from the ailments/ shortcomings pointed out during the initial medical examination, they would succeed. – On the other hand, if they do suffer from the ailments/shortcomings, they would be discarded. – There is no right of further appeal against the decision of the review medical board. – In case the certificates furnished by the petitioners are relied upon at this stage, the respondents would not suffer except that they shall have to hold a review medical examination. – On the other hand, if the petitioners really do not suffer from any ailment/shortcoming, as alleged, but their appeal for review medical examination is rejected at the very threshold on the above ground, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. – In all events, therefore, the appeals preferred by the petitioners for a review medical examination should not be dismissed in the manner as has been done by the respondents. –

Result: Writ Petitions Allowed