Vikash Choudhary vs Union Of India & Others

Asha Menon, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shri Vikash Choudhary, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders dated 1st

February 2020 and 16th October 2020 whereby the petitioner was found medically unfit and for directions to the respondent  No.1/Union of India,

respondent No.2/DG CRPF and respondent No.3/Staff Selection Commission to allow the petitioner to be medically examined by an Independent

Board in R & R Hospital and direct his appointment if found fit.

The petitioner had, responded to the advertisement dated 21st July 2018 of the respondent No.3/Staff Selection Commission inviting online

applications to participate in the examination for the recruitment of Constables (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA &

SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR). He successfully cleared the written exam on 14th February 2019 and cleared the Physical Efficiency

Test (PET). Subsequently, he was called for medical examination on 31st January 2020 and was declared medically unfit due to ‘eye squint’

and ‘knock knee more than 5cm’. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appeal Medical Board requesting for Re-

Medical Examination, as he was confident that he was not suffering from any disability. On 15th October 2020, the petitioner appeared before the

Appeal Medical Board, but was again declared medically unfit the same day on the ground that he had ‘knock knees more than 5 cms’.

Dissatisfied with these findings, the petitioner got himself medically examined on 31st October 2020 at V.M.M.C. & Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi

where the Senior Resident, Central Institute of Orthopaedics on examination found him without any disability.

The ld. counsel for the petitioner has pressed that in the light of such contradictory findings of the Medical Boards of the respondents and the

Doctor of Safdarjung Hospital, this was a fit case where this Court should direct the respondents to get the petitioner re-examined by an Orthopaedic

Specialist as it was a matter of his future. The ld counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judgements placed in the e-paperbook as Annexure

P- 4 to P -9 allowing such requests for a re-medical examination.

We are unable to agree with these submissions. In fact over the last few months we have had occasion to deal with several similar petitions and

have been of the view that the medical standards for the Armed Forces including CAPFs is much higher than the standards for civilian service.

Therefore, the assessment by a Medical Board made up of doctors familiar with the conditions of service of these Forces will have greater weightage

than the opinion of doctors in civil hospitals who have no idea about the challenges in field service.

We find that there is no challenge to the report of the Appeal Medical Board as being vitiated by improper constitution, except to claim that there

was no Orthopaedic in the Appeal Medical Board.

However, the existence or otherwise of ‘knock knees’ does not entail specialist knowledge, even as per the definition given by the petitioner in

para no. 10 of his petition. It can be discernible to even a common person. We are unable to find any violation of the Rules.

In a recent decision of this court in W.P. (C) No. 4558/2020 titled as Sharvan Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 27th July

2020, this Court has reiterated that the report of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board to be final decision of the

Medical Board, in the following words:-

“4. We have recently in judgment dated 15th July, 2020 in W.P.(C) 3930/2020 titled Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India, in the context of

medical test for recruitment in the officer cadre of Indian Air Force, Rules wherein provide for examination by Medical Board, Appeal

Medical Board and Review Medical Board, held as under:-

“8. We have today again considered whether the petitioner is entitled to yet another chance and are unable to find any justification for

the same. We have already in the order dated 6th July, 2020 observed that fitness for serving requisite duties in the Air Force is a matter of

opinion and if in the opinion of the authorities constituted under the Rules of the Air Force the petitioner is unfit, a report of a medical

practitioner of another organization which does not intend to recruit the petitioner and which will not be affected by the medical unfitness

of the petitioner, cannot be the basis for interfering with the assessment by the Air Force. It cannot be lost sight of that just as in justice

delivery, appeal provisions are provided to eliminate the possibility of human error, so have a sufficient number of opportunities of

preferring an appeal and thereafter preferring a review have been provided in the matter of medical examination and just like the decision

making before the Courts cannot be indefinite, so can the decision making with respect to medical fitness in the Air Force, cannot be

indefinite. There has to be a finality in decision making, as is there in the justice delivery system. It cannot be lost sight of that no mala fides

are attributed with respect to any of the medical examinations or to the team of medical professionals conducting the medical examination. It

is the medical practitioners of the Air Force and Defence Services, who have themselves undergone the requisite trainings and discharge

the functions of the organization, who are best suited to form an opinion as to the medical fitness of the candidates to be recruited and once

they have so formed their opinion, there can be no interference therewith, at the mere asking of a rejected/disgruntled candidate.â€​

What has been held in the context of Air Force, equally applies here. Once the Rules provide for the report of the Medical Board and

Review Medical Board to be final, every candidate declared medically unfit, cannot, at the mere asking, be granted another opportunity as

is found to be sought in innumerable cases coming up before the courts. Medical opinion, like a legal opinion, can vary from professional

to professional and once the Rules provide for finality and are found in the present case to have provided for a review, to eliminate the

possibility of human error, that finality has to be accepted, unless a case for interference is made out.

Para 7 of the same judgment is as below:

“7. We have in judgment dated 22nd May 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 3237/2020 titled Dhiraj Milind Dhurve vs. UPSC, in the context of

medical examination test in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and which includes respondents CRPF, held, that the candidates found

medically unfit cannot seek a change of the terms subject to which they have taken the examination and which terms uniformly apply to all

candidates. It was held that the principle of ‘Rules of the Game cannot be changed after the game has begun’ applies, with only a few

of all those found medically unfit, who approach the court, being permitted another round of medical test.â€​

The petitioner has availed of all opportunities to get a second opinion during the Appeal Medical Board and there is no purpose left in getting a

further medical examination conducted.

We do not find any merit in the present petition.

Dismissed.