Narinder Singh @APPELLANT@Hash Director General Of Crpf And Others.

Pursuant to Frontier Headquarter, BSF, New Delhi’s letter dated 31.01.2012, a special recruitment drive was carried out in the State of J&K to

supply the unfilled vacancies of Constable (GD) in BSF for the year 2011-12. On 27.02.2012, an advertisement notification in this regard was issued

and the candidates who were willing and fulfill the prescribed physical and medical standards were invited to appear at the PST/PET Centres

designated in their respective districts on 26.03.2012 and 28.03.2012. The petitioner appeared before the Regional Selection Board at BSF Camp

Painthee, Samba and sought recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) under OBC category. Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test was

conducted in which he qualified. The petitioner, therefore, became eligible to appear in the next event i.e. written examination. The petitioner qualified

the written test also and was, therefore, called to appear for medical examination.Â

On 17.04.2012, the medical examination of the petitioner was conducted and he was declared unfit due to “Gynaecomastia leftâ€. The petitioner

was, however, given an opportunity to appeal against the finding of the medical examination for which he was intimated in writing. The petitioner

seized the opportunity and submitted an appeal for review medical examination. Accordingly, review medical examination of the petitioner was

conducted at FHQ, BSF, Paloura Camp, Jammu on 26.07.2012. During the review medical examination, the petitioner was again found medically unfit

due to “Gynaecomastia left more than rightâ€. It is stated that the result of the review medical examination conducted by the respondents was not

conveyed to the petitioner which constrained the petitioner to file SWP No.1740/2012 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to declare the

result of the review medical examination and consider the petitioner for appointment as Constable (GD) in BSF. The aforesaid writ petition was

disposed of on 27.08.2012 with a direction to the respondents to declare the result of review medical board within two weeks. In compliance, the

respondent No.3 communicated the result of the review medical examination of the petitioner to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the

instant writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am satisfied that the respondents had not treated the petitioner fairly and

have failed to conduct review medical examination of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs for

conducting the medical examination tests for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFS) and Assam Riffles (AR).

Needless to say that the BSF is amongst the Central Armed Police Forces of the Union of India.Â

For appreciating the grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition, it would be necessary to first refer to the rule position governing the

medical examination for recruitment of GOs and NGOs including Constable in the BSF, as was obtaining in the year 2012 when the process for

recruitment in question was set in motion. Admittedly, in the year 2012 the medical examination for recruitment of Constable (GD) in CAPFS and

AR including the BSF was regulated by Uniform Guidelines for the purposes issued by the Additional Director General (Medical), CAPFs and AR,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Guideline No.12 which is relevant is reproduced hereunder:-

 “12. Steps 1 (Group Test) General Examination

 The candidates examined at a glance presenting with any of the following disease/disability will be rejected:-

(a) Any congenital malformation or defects.

(b) Any obvious squint or other abnormalities of eyes.

(c) Any glandular swelling.

(d) Pronounced Stammering.

(e) Deformity of Chest.

(f) Any obvious skin lesions as referred to at paragraph 24 to 29 below.

(g) Umbilical Hernia.

(h) Gynaecomastia.

(i) Gross Spinal Deformity.

(j) Any obvious physical deformity or disease. The level of intelligence is checked during the verbal discussion with recruit.â€​

From a bare reading of the aforesaid guidelines it is apparent that a candidate suffering from Gyaecomastia is required to be outrightly rejected

even by examination at a glance. There is, however, a provision for filing appeal for medical re-examination. Obviously, the petitioner exercised that

right and his appeal was entertained and consequently, review medical examination of the petitioner was conducted. So far as guidelines for review

medical examination are concerned, those are also part of Uniform Guidelines aforementioned issued in the year 2011. The relevant portions of the

guidelines for review medical boards which are relevant for deciding the controversy in this petition need to be noticed and are reproduced hereunder:-

Â

“3. Few examples are being cited for the guidance of Review Medical Board.

(a) In any cardiac case like vavular defects ECG/Echocardiogram must be carried out

(b) In cases of suspected lesions of chest like Hilar Lymphadenitis, calcified spots, Koch’s infiltrations any mass detected in X-Ray chest etc CT

Chest should be carried out.

(c) For vascular defects like Varicose vein, vascular malformations etc Colour Doppler should be carried out

(d) For any keratotomy/Lasik Surgery, slit lamp Opthalmoscopy and Corneal Topography should be carried out

(e) For squint Synoptophore test should be conducted

(f) For colour blindness Edridge lathern should be used and decision should be given judiciously giving full details of tests carried out both on Ishihara

chart and Edridge lanthern

(g) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their

final opinion regarding the candidate’s 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.Â

(h) For any suspected case of CAD, TMT test should be conducted

(i) Any tremor in hands or other parts of body thyrotoxicosis should be ruled out and neurologist’s opinion should be taken.

(j) For suspected Diabetes Mellitus cases GGT and glycosylated Hb. Test should be carried out

(k) For knock knee, bow leg, cubitus valgus and varus deformities, X-Ray plate with findings should be attached.

(l) For any type of deafness, Audiometry should be carried out.

These are a few examples just to reiterate and bring home the point that inreview medical examination candidates should not be rejected on

clinicalfindings only. Any decision on rejection must be taken with valid clinicalfindings fully justified and supported by corroboratory investigation

reportsand if needed opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt.Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved private medical Centres shouldbe

taken Obviously when such confirmatory tests are required to be carried out routinely, time constrain should not be there and for not making review

medical examination time bound, all concerned may be informed otherwise proper decision cannot be taken in such cases.†(emphasis supplied by

me)

From a perusal of the guidelines for review medical boards, it is abundantly clear that “in review medical examination, the candidate cannot be

rejected on clinical findings only. Any decision on rejection ought to be taken with valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by corroboratory

investigation reports and if needed opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt. Hospitals/Medical Colleges/Govt. approved medical Centres should

be taken.â€Â In the backdrop of aforesaid legal position pertaining to the conduct of initial medical and review medical boards, it is to be seen

whether the procedure laid down in the aforesaid guidelines was followed by the respondents while conducting the review medical board of the

petitioner. After the petitioner was rejected in the initial medical board for being detected from suffering “Gynaecomastiaâ€, the petitioner got

himself examined by a medical expert at the District Hospital, Samba who after examining the petitioner declared him medically fit for the post of

Constable (GD) in CAPFs. The findings of the doctor, as recorded by him in the medical fitness certificate issued by him are in the following manner:-

“Pt. is having physiological gynaecomastia of adolescence which is normal finding in this age gp. And no contra indication for any job.â€​Â

With the support of aforesaid medical fitness certificate the petitioner appealed for review medical board. The appeal of the petitioner was

accepted and he was subjected to review medical examination by the respondents. The review medical board, however, without subjecting the

petitioner to any investigation, conducting his sonography etc. rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of clinical findings only. As is

evident from the result of review medical examination which is made part of objections by the respondents as Annexure-R-5, the review medical

board returned its findings in the following manner:-

 “Gynaecomastia left more than rightâ€​

Accordingly, the petitioner was declared unfit even in the review medical examination. No reasons have been given by the review medical board to

differ with the certificate of fitness granted by the medical officer in the Government Hospital, Samba and opinion rendered by him therein. As a

matter of fact the aforesaid opinion has not been taken note of by the review medical board.

Mrs. Sindhu Sharma, learned ASGI, however, was provided opportunity to produce any record contemporaneously maintained to support the

findings of the review medical board. In response, she fairly stated that there is no such record maintained by the review medical board which would

indicate that the petitioner was subjected to any investigation or any ultrasound examination was conducted to find out as to whether the disease-

Gynaecomastia found in the medical examination is due to fatty tissue or breast tissue. As has been provided in the subsequent guidelines issued in the

year 2015, the candidate suffering from Gynaecomastia ought to be rejected only if Gynaecomastia is found to be due to breast tissue. I am aware

that the aforesaid guidelines which were promulgated in the year 2015 are not applicable but the guidelines of 2011 also specifically provide that

decision to reject a candidate in review medical board should not be taken only on the basis of clinical findings, unless these are fully justified and

supported by the corroboratory investigation reports. Furthermore, the opinion of the specialist of a Government Hospital, if on record also required to

be taken into consideration. The decision of the review medical board, in the facts and circumstances explained above, is cryptic, non-speaking and in

violation of the guidelines issued for the purposes. Â

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order No.112/01/2012-Estt-

IV/BSF/1959398 dated 08.09.2012 whereby the petitioner was declared unfit in the review medical board for the post of Constable (GD) BSF due to

Gynaecomastia is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to reconvene the review medical board and examine the petitioner again strictly

in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs for conducting the review medical board/review

medical examinations of the candidates for recruitment to different posts including Constable (GD) in BSF which were in force when the process for

recruitment in question was set in motion by the respondents. Let the review medical examination of the petitioner be conducted afresh within a period

of four weeks from the date the certified copy of this order is made available to the respondents. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner is found fit

in the fresh review medical board, the petitioner shall be given appointment as Constable (GD) without any further loss of time.