IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 68 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 5, 2023 Rinku H …Petitioner.

Versus Union of India & others f ..Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Stingh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporrting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.

For the Responodents: Mr.Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)

h Petitioner has approached this Court, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against rejection of his candidature for the post of Constable/PNR in Plumber Trade, advertised for recruitment by Indo Tibetan Border Police, on the ground that he was found unfit for Defective Refractive Error in both eyes (both eyes 6/24). The said rejection (Annexure P-4)

was issued on 22.02.2012

2. On request of the petitioner, petitioner was re- examined on 15.05.2012, but again he was declared unfit for the same reason.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. It is case of the petitioner that, thereafter, he got his eyes checked in Punjab Health Systems Corporation, Civil Hospital, Pathankot on 05.08.2012, where his vision was reported to be 6/6 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner has also p.laced reliance upon certificate (Annexure P-7) issued by Darishti Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Pathankot, wherein it has been certi fied that petitioner was operated both eyes and his vision of both eyes was found 6/6.

4. Thereafter, petitioner had served notice dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-8) upon the respondents for considering him for recruitment to the post concerned, claiming that his vision, 6/6 of both eyes, was meeting requirement of eligibility condition to the post in question.

5. Notice was replied by DIG (Establishment) of ITBP vide communication dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure P-9) stating that as the petitioner has been declared unfit in medical examination as well as re-medical examination, therefore, he is not eligible for appointment as Constable/Pioneer (Plumber) in ITBP.

6. In response to the petition, reason declaring the petitioner unfit for the job has been reiterated.

7. During pendency of the petition, petitioner was subjected to Medical Examination by Medical Board in Indira Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, in pursuance to direction issued by this Court. In the said medical examination, Medical Board had opined that visual acuity is 6/6 partial both eyes improving to 6/6 with pin hole.

8. Vide order dated 10.11.2020, Senior Medical Superintendent, IGMC, was also directed to obtain opinion of Medical Board, as to whether a person having Defective Refractive Error in both eyes, can have improved .eye-sight, with vision 6/6. Thereafter, in furtherance to order dated 08.07.2022, petitioner was re-examined by Medica l Board in IGMC on 22.07.2022 and Medical Board opined that patient has visual acuity of less than 6/6, i.e. 6/9 and patient had refractive error which might improve with glasses to normal.

9. In the light of variation in the reports of the Medical Examination of the petitioner, respondents were also directed to impart complete instructions, particularly in the light of opinion of the Medical Board of IGMC. In response thereto, office Memo dated 09.09.2022 was placed on record on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been reported as under:-

“2. The petitioner Mr.Rinku is a candidate for i the post of Constable/PNR in ITBP for the year 2011-

12. His Detailed Medical Examination (DME) was conducted on 22.02.2012 in which he had been declared UNFIT due to reasons “Defective Refractive Error both eyes (Both Eyes 6/24)”. His Review Medical Examination by eye specialist was conducted on 15.05.2012 at Base Hospital, ITBP, New Delhi and he was declared unfit on account of “Defective Distant Vision” (6/9 RE, 6/12 LE) which is below standard for Recruitment for the post of CT/PNR in ITBP.

As per extent instruction Uniform guidelines for MET of CT/GD in CAPFs & AR issued