The review medical examination conducted by two doctors, one of which belongs to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), was final and binding.

Headnote:
MEDICAL EXAMINATION - RECRUITMENT - REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION - [The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to another review medical examination as the review medical examination conducted by two doctors, one of which belongs to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), was final and binding.]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who had applied for the post of Constable (GD), Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota for border districts, was found medically unfit by the Doctor who conducted the medical examination on 31.07.2023 due to Unequal Pupillary Reactions. However, the petitioner was found to be fit in the review medical examination conducted by two doctors when he was examined on 02.08.2023. However, the same two doctors again found the petitioner to be medically unfit on 05.08.2023.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to another review medical examination as the review medical examination conducted by two doctors, one of which belongs to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), was final and binding.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to another review medical examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, wherein the Apex Court held that the party who invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

ORDER

29.11.2023 Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K.

Goswami, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner took part in the selection process for filling up the post of Constable (GD), Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota for border districts.

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the petitioner had been found to be medically unfit by the Doctor who conducted the medical examination on 31.07.2023 due to Unequal Pupillary Reactions, he was found to be fit in the review medical examination conducted by two doctors when he was examined on 02.08.2023. However, the same two doctors again found the petitioner to be medically unfit on 05.08.2023. He submits that the petitioner thereafter went to one Dr. A. Mahanta, who found that the petitioner did not suffer from any medical problem.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has also been found fit by the All Indian Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Guwahati, vide medical certificate dated 11.09.2023 and by one Dr. Rahil Chaudhary, Medical Superintendent, Eye 7 Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who is from Delhi.

5. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has made the review medical examination report into two different review examinations. He submits that petitioner’s attempt to make the review medical examination report held on 02.08.2023 to be two review medical examinations on 02.08.2023 and 05.08.2023 is not correct, as the same shows that it had been done only on 02.08.2023 and in the review medical examination, the petitioner was found to be medically unfit.

6. Mr. Goswami also submits that the report of Dr. A. Mahanta, who had apparently examined the petitioner on 05.08.2023, cannot be a basis for over- ruling the opinion of the doctors in the review medical examination held on

02.08.2023. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. As can be seen from the writ petition and the annexures therein, the petitioner was first examined on 31.07.2023 and was found unfit. The petitioner was thereafter informed that as he had been found unfit due to Unequal Pupillary Reactions, he could apply for a review medical examination. Consequent to the above, a review medical examination of the petitioner was conducted by two doctors on 02.08.2023, wherein the petitioner was again found to be unfit due to Bilateral (B/L) Axonal Neuropathy in VEP.

9. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case that two different review medical examinations were held on 02.08.2023 and 05.08.2023, it is clear from Annexure 8 (Page 34 and 41) that the review medical examination had been held only once, i.e. on 02.08.2023, wherein the petitioner had been found to be unfit.

10. The document shown to this Court by the petitioner’s counsel, i.e. Page 41 of the writ petition, which he claims is the report of the second review medical examination of the petitioner held on 05.08.2023, shows the date “2/8/23”. However, there is a number “05” shown beside the date “2/8/23”. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case that he had been found fit subsequently by one Dr. A. Mahanta, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahanta is not on any letter head. There is nothing known as to whether Dr. Mahanta is an MBBS doctor or otherwise. The copy of the original medical certificate issued by Dr. A. Mahanta shows that the same has been written in a blank page and nothing is known as to his address, his Registration Number as a doctor and where he works or his qualification. There is nothing known as to what degree he has.

11. The Out Patient Department card issued by the All India Institute of Medical Science, Guwahati showing the examination of the petitioner as 11.09.2023 shows the words “VEP wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document