Tapas Sanfui vs The Union of India & Others.

Pursuant to a notification for recruitment in Assam Rifle, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD). Subsequently, he participated in the physical eligibility test, physical standard test, etc. and was issued admit card for the written examination in which he appeared. After this, he appeared at the medical test. The medical officer declared the petitioner unfit for employment as he was suffering from knock-knee.

The petitioner states that as per the opportunity given by the respondent authorities, he filed an application for an appeal by way of a Review Medical Examination in the printed format after obtaining necessary medical certificate from a medical practitioner, specialist medical officer of Government, district hospital and above. In the said application form it was specifically mentioned that if a candidate failed to submit his or her application within the stipulated time, it shall be treated to have been cancelled without any further notice. It was also mentioned that if the appeal is not signed by the candidate and the medical certificate is not signed by the doctors, the appeal would be summarily rejected.

The petitioner claims to have complied with all the formalities. The medical officer of Bishnupur District Hospital, Bishnupur, Bankura duly certified and declared the petitioner medically fit for the said post. The petitioner was subsequently examined by the Review Medical Board on August 30, 2016 and again he was declared unfit on the same ground.

The petitioner alleges that since the prescribed medical officer of the Government Hospital had examined the petitioner and declared him fit for service, the respondent authority should have allowed the review sought by him; but arbitrarily they stuck to their own decision.

But this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to quash the decision of rejection of the petitioner''s review and to issue a letter of appointment in his favour.

The respondents contested the case but did not wish to file any affidavit-in-opposition as the facts alleged in the writ petition were not disputed by them.

The sole question that crops up for consideration was whether the respondents acted improperly in dismissing the medical review of the unfitness of the petitioner which was initially detected at the first medical examination, and whether that is a justiciable cause for the court to intervene in a writ petition.

So far as the first issue is concerned the doctor who had examined the petitioner must be deemed to be a competent medical authority for the purpose. The Court does not have the expertise nor can it be ever called to decide the validity of the medical or any expert opinion given by the specialist in the concerned respective fields. This is a settled principle of law that the Court should be very slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the expert in the absence of any allegation of mala fide against them. In the case of Neelima Mishra Vs. Dr. Harinder Cour Paintal, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1402, the Supreme Court had held that when appointment is based on the recommendation of the expert the High Court can only see whether the same had contravened any statutory rules or ordinance.

The petitioner has not alleged any mala fide or any bias or malice against either the Review Medical Board in general or any member of the said Board in particular. In the Review Medical Board the petitioner was examined by three qualified doctors and there being no allegation that they lacked the qualification to examine the patient and come to a wrong conclusion, the finding of the Review Medical Board cannot be even questioned, far less set aside.

In order to enable the petitioner to appear before the Review Medical Board after the initial rejection of his candidature on medical ground he was required to furnish a medical fitness certificate of a doctor attached to a District Government Hospital or above. This was made a pre-condition for the constitution of the Review Medical Board that a doctor of certain designation and above had opined that the petitioner was not suffering from the concerned medical condition. The whole purpose was to attach due importance to a certificate of fitness issued by a doctor of certain designation and above.

In the present case, the petitioner annexed the certificate of a medical officer of Sitarampur Charitable Dispensary, Suryanagar, South 24-Parganas. This certainly did not meet the requirement of providing the medical certificate from a doctor of the district hospital and above. Without meaning any disrespect to the qualification and the opinion expressed by the doctor of the concerned dispensary, the court has to hold that the respondents were not even required to entertain the application for a Review Medical Board when that was not accompanied by a doctor of the Government district hospital or above. The petitioner had specifically mentioned in the application and disclosed the identity of the doctor who had declared him fit. The designation of that doctor not corresponding to or matching the requisite status of a doctor mentioned in the application form, the respondents ought not be have called him before the Review Medical Board.

The petitioner was also wrong in mentioning in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the medical officer of Bishnupur District Hospital, Bishnupur, Bankura had declared him medically fit for the post, whereas the certificate of a charitable dispensary of South 24-Parganas has been annexed to the writ petition. It was specifically mentioned in the application that medical fitness certificate in the prescribed format was to be provided by an applicant and certificate in any other format would be rejected. Even if the said certificate was in the prescribed form since it was not issued by the appropriate designated medical officer, the respondents could also have dismissed the same in limine as not terms of their requirements. Instead, they had given opportunity to the petitioner for appearing before the Review Medical Board and re-examined him. Thus, they did more than probably what was expected of them. Merely because, the expert opinion of the Review Medical Board did not tally with the opinion of the doctor of a charitable dispensary is no reason for setting aside the opinion of the Review Medical Board.

I find absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to the costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.