A candidate who fails to meet prescribed medical standards after multiple examinations cannot demand a re-medical examination at their own convenience, as there is no established procedure for such requests and it would compromise the finality of the selection process.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Home appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in cancelling the provisional selection for the post of SCT PC (Civil) vide Memorandum No.Rc.No.221/Rect./Genl.1/2019 dated 22.09.2020 and in not sending the petitioner for re-medical examination as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner belongs to the ABO-ST category of Adilabad District. In pursuance to the Notification Rc.No.88/Rect./Admn.1/2018 dated 31.05.2018 issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner applied, appeared in all phases and successfully cleared all stages of selection and was selected as SCT PC (Civil) by securing 105 out of 200 marks in Adilabad District. Initially, the petitioner’s case was put on hold as his Agency Area Local Schedule Tribe Certificate, along with four (4) others, was disputed as not genuine. Subsequently, the petitioner and four (4) others were permitted to submit all the documents. At that time, the respondents conducted a medical test and declared the petitioner unfit due to poor eyesight. The petitioner now contends that since he has not undergone eye surgery previously, he is now ready for re-medical examination and meets the required eyesight specifications mentioned in the notification. However, the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner for re-medical examination. In view of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for re-medical examination.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that, in pursuance to the said notification, the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of SCT PC (Civil) under ABO-ST Category in Adilabad District subject to the verification of antecedents, certificates and medical fitness. In the medical examination conducted at District Head Quarters Hospital Adilabad, the petitioner’s distant vision was recorded as RE-6/6 and LE-6/18 and recommended to refer him to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital. Accordingly, the petitioner was referred to the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital and was examined on 04.11.2019 by a board comprising of three (3) Ophthalmologists and the petitioner’s distant vision was recorded as RE-6/18 and LE-6/19 and was declared unfit. Again, the medical board of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital comprising of three (3) Ophthalmologists examined the petitioner on 24.01.2020. The Superintendent, Sarojini Devi Eye vide Hospital Lr.No.123/MB/SDEH/2020 dated 24.01.2020 has furnished the report according to which the petitioner’s distant vision of right eye was recorded as “6/18” and left eye “6/18” and was declared as unfit.

5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as per Rule 14 (a) (i) (ii) of the SCT Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.97 of Home (Legal.II) Department dated 01.05.2006, the distant vision of both Right and Left Eye should be “6/6” and each eye should have a full field of vision. As per required medical standards and rules mentioned at Para 16 (E) in the recruitment notification, the petitioner was not fit to join duty as SCT PC (Civil). The petitioner was medically examined in the month of October, 2019 at District Headquarters Hospital of Adilabad and in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital on 04.11.2019 and 24.01.2020. As the petitioner was already examined thrice, there cannot be further medical examination as per the convenience of the petitioner. If such a procedure is permitted, there will be no finality to selection process. In view of the same, learned Standing Counsel requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition as there are