Bikash Saibam vs Union Of India And 2 Ors

1.Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.

Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 03.12.2011 issued by the Staff Selection Commission for

recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Police Force and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles for the year 2012. However, when medical examination

was conducted upon the petitioner after he was found successful in all the other tests, he was found to be having hypertension as well as

hypertraophic post burn scar approx. 9 c.m. on left side of chest. Since the scheme of the recruitment permits conducting of a review medical test if

applied for at the cost and expense of the candidate concerned, the petitioner sought for a review medical examination. Accordingly, he was examined

by a review medical board on 28.03.2014. This time the petitioner was found to have drastic hypertension. It was remarked that on physical

examination, his blood pressure was found to be 130/100 m.mHg. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Uniform Guidelines for medical examination of Constables/General Duty in

Central Assam Police Forces and Assam Rifles issued by the Office of the Additional Director General (Medical) under the Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India on 13.07.2011 submits that the respondent authorities concerned have failed to comply with the guidelines. By referring

to Clause 66 of the said guidelines, he submits that candidates are not to be rejected on the basis of high reading of blood pressure. In case the blood

pressure is recorded to be higher than 140 mm systolic and/or 90 mm Hg diastolic, at least 2 more recordings should be taken in a lying position at an

interval of 6 to 8 hours before declaring him unfit. By further referring to the guidelines to be followed by the Medical Review Board under Clause 73

of the said Guidelines, he submits that candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hyper tension amongst others should be admitted/

hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidates fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate

whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc. or whether, it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases, X-Ray

and electro-cardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/ lipid profile, S. creatinine etc, tests should also be carried out.

Reference made by the learned counsel as above is seen at Clause 3(g) under the heading “Guidelines for review Medical boardsâ€. Mr. R.

Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that under the circumstance, since the guidelines have not been followed, Court may

direct the respondents authority concerned to allow the petitioner to undergo another medical test. In support of his submission, he also refers to a

decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hriday Basumatary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2008(3) GLT 331.

Appearing for the respondents Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC submits that on a lease perusal of the medical examination report annexed by the

petitioner as Annexure-‘C’, it can be seen that the measurement of the blood pressure of the petitioner was taken on 3 different dates i.e. on

09.01.2014, 10.01.2014 and 11.01.2014. After recording the blood pressure of the petitioner on 3 consecutive dates he was found to be not fit since his

blood pressure was high. Therefore, the petitioner is not correct in saying that he guidelines for Medical Examination has not been followed. In so far

as the result of the Review Medical Examination is concerned, he submits that as per his instruction, the Review Medical Examination was conducted

by a team of Specialized Medical Officers. However, the petitioner admittedly was not hospitalized. To substantiate his submission Mr. G. Pegu refers

to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 on 12.12.2014, more particularly paragraph No. 8 of the said affidavit. He submits

that the petitioner was only declared unfit on the basis of the opinion of the Board of Expert Medical Officers and considering the fact that recruitment

was conducted in the year 2014, it is too late in a day to seek for yet another Medical Examination. Under the circumstances, he submits that the writ

petition may be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and also perused the materials available on record including guidelines referred to by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and also the decision relied upon by him. The only issue to be considered is as to whether the petitioner was

medically examined fairly and as per the guidelines issued in this regard. On a perusal of the Review Medical Examination annexed by the petitioner

as Annexure-‘B’ of the writ petition, the same goes to show that on physical examination on the blood pressure of the petitioner it was found

that his blood pressure was 130/100 mmHg. As a result, it was quoted that he was unfit on account of Drastic Hyper Tension. The question therefore,

is as to whether by checking blood pressure only once, it can be said that the petitioner was having Drastic Hyper Tension. It will be difficult for this

Court to answer the question since the same will require the opinion of an expert. However, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner and also

noticed in the relevant guidelines, candidates medically reviewed for having hyper tension are required to be admitted or hospitalized before a final

opinion can be arrived at on his fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is in the nature of a

passing phase or due to any organic disease. A perusal of the said guidelines in my considered opinion, would only mean that the blood pressure

measurement will have to be done for more than once. Keeping this in mind, perhaps, hospitalization of the candidate concerned has been provided in

the guidelines.

In the case of Hriday Basumatary and others (Supra), it is seen that the petitioners were also candidates for appointment as Constable (GD) and

their candidature was rejected after they were found to be medically unfit since their blood pressure was on the higher side. This Court upon

considering the grounds for rejection, directed the respondents authorities to re-examine them again within a time frame. It was further directed that in

the event they were found to be medically fit on such re-examination, they should be selected and appointed against the post which was kept vacant

by way of an interim order.

In the present case, no such interim order was passed as submitted by Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. However,

considering the fact that the guidelines provides for certain procedure to be undertaken by the Medical Review Board, I am of the considered opinion

that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given one more chance to be medically examined by the respondents authorities. The question of

petitioner being over aged also should not be an impediment inasmuch as on the date of application he was found to be within the age limit.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Regional

Director (NER), Staff Selection Commission, Rukmininagar, Guwahati to arrange for the medical examination of the petitioner by a Review Medical

Board within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is found to be

medically fit after such medical examination, the respondents shall appoint him against to an appropriate post.

With the above observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of.