Paridhi Chauhan vs Union Of India And Ors

CM APPL. 33666/2020 (for exemption).

Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10742/2020 & CM APPL. 33665/2020 (for stay).

The petitioner, a candidate for recruitment in Short Service Commission (SSC) in the respondents Indian Army for SSCW (Tech)-26 Course, has

filed this petition, aggrieved from the cancellation of his candidature, on being declared medically unfit by the Medical Board, Appeal Medical Board

and Review Medical Board and seeks constitution of an independent Medical Board to re-examine the petitioner.

We have dealt with the aspect of interference with such opinion of the doctors of the Armed Forces, in Vani Viswanathan Vs. Union of India

MANU/DE/1678/2020, Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951, Akash Sharma Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2069/2020, Nishant

Kumar Vs Union of India MANU/DE/1486/2020S, harvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 92 4and Jonu Tiwari Vs Union of

India MANU/DE/1524/2020 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13492/2020 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 17th December, 2020] and may

succinctly state that the view taken by us is that merely on a challenge being made to the medical opinion of the experts of the respondents, the

petitioner cannot be referred for yet another opinion, particularly on the basis of the opinion of another doctor, whether private or from a government

hospital, unless from a perusal of the medical opinion of the Medical Board and the Appeal/Review Medical Board of the respondents, a case for

doubting the said opinion is made out or if the opinion rendered is found to be vague. Here, the petitioner, by the Medical Board, Appeal Medical

Board as well as by the Review Medical Board, has been declared unfit for the reason of suffering from „Heterochromia Iridis with pigment

dispersion in both eyes and Central Corneal Opacity in the left eye‟. Though the senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not been

furnished the findings in writing of the Appeal Board and the Review Medical Board but we are proceeding on the basis of pleadings of the petitioner.

The petitioner challenges the said opinion on the basis of, (i) opinion of Dr. Sandeep Mithal, Ex-Professor and Head of Department of

Ophthalmology, Lala Lajpat Rai Medical College, Meerut, a Government run District Medical College and Hospital at Meerut, who has opined, again

as per the pleading of the petitioner herself, “that the opacity of the eye of the petitioner is negligible and of no visual significance and further that

heterochromia iridis is just a variation of the normal and does not cause any visual deterioration, whether present or in futureâ€; (ii) opinion of the Dr.

A.K. Grover, Senior Consultant in the Ophthalmology Department at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, who has opined “that the pigmented

dots on the surface of lens are congenital in origin, physiological in nature and are not significant of any pathology which may cause deterioration of

vision in futureâ€; (the petitioner has also pleaded that though the said doctor informed her “that there is very small nebular opacity, the same being

less than1 mm in size, was not visually significant and that the petitioner has no vision related problemsâ€); (iii) opinion of the ophthalmological out

patient department (OPD) at the Lala Lajpat Rai Medical College, Meerut which has opined “that no visually significant corneal opacity is present

in either of the eyes of the petitioner†and “that heterochromia iridis with pigment dispersion has no visual significance and there is no evidence of

glaucoma/uveitis/ocular pathologyâ€; (iv) opinion of Ophthalmological OPD of Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which has also opined “that the

petitioner has perfect vision, ocular pressure and color vision and there are no other signs or symptoms of any sortâ€; (v) opinion of the doctors of All

India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi who have opined “that colour difference in the eyes is caused by hyper pigmentation,

which is a normal condition, and not to be confused with any abnormality such as pigment dispersion syndrome†and “that corneal opacity is

nebular corneal opacity and is not visually significant†and that “the eyes of the petitioners are simply a variation of the normal and the said

condition has no related abnormalityâ€; (vi) that the petitioner, in the year 2018 had cleared the Air Force Common Admission Test and though was

not selected but had undergone a medical examination which had found the petitioner fit; and, (vii) the petitioner, earlier had also participated in the

Central Defence Services Examination and though was found medically unfit but on appeal thereagainst was orally informed by the Appeal Medical

Board that the petitioner was fit, though was not selected due to lower rank in the merit list.

What is significant is that the opinion of the other doctors consulted by the petitioner is consistent with the opinion of the Medical Board, Appeal

Medical Board and Review Medical Board of the respondents Indian Army, to the extent that the petitioner does indeed has heterochromia iridis and

opacity in the left eye. The difference between the opinion of the doctors of the respondents Indian Army and the other doctors consulted by the

petitioner is, that while the doctors of the respondents Indian Army have found the aforesaid to be disqualification for recruitment in the Defence

Forces, the other doctors have opined that the same has no effect on the vision of the petitioner.

The aforesaid difference in opinion is understandable. It is only the doctors of the respondents, who are aware of the rigors and fitness required for

serving in the Defence Forces in alien conditions, which civilians are not even aware of, who can determine the fitness required therefor. It is for this

reason only that in the recruitment process, the medical examination is provided to be conducted by the doctors and medical experts of the forces

themselves and not by the doctors of the civilian population. It is only the foot which wears the shoe which can tell whether it pinches or not.

We cannot be unmindful of the fact that a medically unfit person, when recruited, becomes a liability not only for the State but also for other

personnel of the Force who are required to serve for longer durations at difficult posts merely because others, though recruited and on the roll of the

Force, are medically unfit therefor.

Thus, in view of the petitioner having been examined by doctors/medical experts at three levels by the respondents i.e. by the Medical Board,

Appeal Medical Board and the Review Medical Board and in the absence of any doubt as to their opinion, we do not find any case to entertain the

petition.

As far as the reliance by the senior counsel for the petitioner on the pleas, of the petitioner having been found fit in other recruitment processes

undertaken by her, also of the Defence Forces, is concerned, suffice it is to state that save for a bare plea there is nothing to demonstrate the same

today. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not possessed of documents declaring her medically fit. The fact of the matters remains that

the petitioner was not recruited. If the merit of the petitioner was low in those examinations, as admitted by her also, it is well nigh possible that the

medical boards undertaking the examination also did not pay much heed to the petitioner, knowing fully well that there was no chance of her being

recruited.

The senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the medical standards and procedure of medical examination but we are afraid the

petitioner cannot derive any benefit thereof also. The same undoubtedly make impairment of vision including colour perception and field of vision, a

ground for declaring a candidate unfit. We may also mention that the doctors who examined the petitioner were of the Base Referral Hospital at Delhi

and of the Army Research and Referral Hospital at Delhi, who are often resorted to by us, and also sought by others, seeking another round of

medical review of the doctors of other medical units of the respondents.

No case for interference is made out.

Dismissed.