Narendra Kumar vs Union Of India

Arun Monga, J

The petitioner herein, aspirant to become a constable (GD), is aggrieved against the order dated 10.10.2024 (Annex.4) vide which he was declared unfit in physical test measuring his height as 169.1 cms. instead of 170 cms. He also seeks command to the respondents to conduct his fresh medical examination considering the certificate issued by the PDU Medical College and D.B. Hospital, Churu on 03.11.2024 (Annex.5).

The relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are as follows:-

2.1 The Staff Selection Commission invited applications for the post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles on 24.11.2023 (Annex.1). The petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared successful.

2.3 Upon being successful in the written test, the petitioner was called for physical test and was directed to appear before the concerned authorities at BSF, SHQ, Bikaner on 10.10.2024. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority where his physical test was conducted and his height was measured as 169.1 cms., whereas the prescribed minimum height is 170 cms. Hence, he was declared disqualified vide order dated 10.10.2024 (Annex.4)

2.4 The petitioner, sought a second opinion and got himself examined privately at PUD Medical College and D.B. Hospital, Churu and it was opined that his height is 170.5 cms vide report dated 03.11.2024 (Annex.5). Thus, he cannot be declared disqualified. Hence, this petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who appeared on advance service.

At the very outset, it so appears that the petitioner, being armed with a medical opinion dated 03.11.2024 (Annex.5), which he has obtained privately, on his own volition, from PDU Medical College and D.B. Hospital, Churu insists that the same be given precedence over the medical board, which was specially constituted by the recruitment agency. The petitioner thus asserts that the medical board of the recruitment agency has committed an error in measuring the height of the petitioner.

4.1 Counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the medical guidelines, the petitioner is eligible to be recruited. And yet, he has not been given the benefit of his performance.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that this Court ought not to sit in appeal as an expert over the medical opinion already rendered in the process of selection.

I am in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this context, reference may be had to a judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case

of Ahil Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. No.797/2021, decided on 27.05.2022. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“10. The medical standard required to be followed for declaring a candidate fit by an Army Doctor is different than that of a civilian doctor. The forces are required to serve on rough terrain, harsh climate conditions, stressful conditions. The fitness of the candidates for army service is to be considered on the basis of requisite duties that they have to perform keeping in view the climatic conditions, rough terrain, extreme conditions while defending the country. They are required to be physically, mentally and emotionally fit to endure rigors of the service condition, accordingly, very high medical standards are required to select the right candidate in the forces. The report of the Civil Hospital declaring the petitioner fit cannot be considered over the opinion of the specialist doctors of the Army as it would be interfering in the assessment made by the specialists of the Armed Force. It is well settled that norms of recruitment of a civil post are different than that of an Army and the standard of selection of the two may also vary.

The petitioner has been examined by the experts in the field who were of the opinion that the petitioner suffers from TMJ Subluxation. These experts have framed an opinion with regard to the fitness of the petitioner and are best judges regarding the same. There being no allegation of malafide/bias and no interference in such an opinion is warranted by this Court.”

I am in respectful agreement with the above view, as similar is the situation herein.

I, therefore, see no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.