Vikash Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged rejection of his candidature by the Medical Board and Review medical Board citing that he has defective vision.

Precisely stated, the facts are that in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 21.07.2018 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner vied for the post of Constable (GD).

Having cleared the written examination the petitioner was subjected to medical examination.

The Medical Board vide its report dated 11.02.2020 found the petitioner unfit for having "defective distant vision".

Feeling dissatisfied with the above medical report, petitioner applied for review medical examination. The Review Medical Board also, vide its report dated 01.10.2020, found the petitioner unfit.

Petitioner has approached this Court with an assertion that as per the certificate(s) given by the Government District Hospital, Paota, Jodhpur and RBM Hospital, Bharatpur, his vision is normal, yet the respondents have arbitrarily rejected him on the ground of defective vision.

The petitioner has also placed on record a report furnished by All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, which too supported petitioner's assertion that his vision is absolutely normal.

This being the position, this Court passed an order dated 06.11.2020, which reads thus -

"1. The petitioner has approached this Court with an assertion that petitioner is having normal vision and rejection of his candidature on the ground of low distant vision by the Medical Board and Review Medical Board of the respondents is illegal and contrary to facts.

In support of his assertion, the petitioner has placed various certificates issued by the Medical Officer at Bharatpur; eye specialist at Paota Hospital, Jodhpur, so also eye specialist of AIIMS, New Delhi.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made a prima-facie case that he be re-examined by independent Medical Board.

The petitioner shall hand over a demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- drawn in the name of Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur before the Registrar (Judicial), Jodhpur on or before 11.11.2020.

The Director, AIIMS shall thereafter constitute a Medical Board consisting two ophthalmologist for examining the petitioner.

In case, petitioner's assertion is found incorrect, the demand draft aforesaid, shall be remitted to Legal Services Authority for encashment, else, appropriate order will be passed by this Court, while deciding the present writ petition.

The petitioner will produce a certified copy of the order instant alongwith the proof of having tendered the demand draft to the Registrar (Judicial), before the Director, AIIMS, Jodhpur, who shall then constitute the Medical Board and inform the petitioner about the date and time of the examination on his mobile phone.

List this case on 26.11.2020."

In pursuance of the direction as issued, AIIMS, Jodhpur has examined the petitioner on 17.11.2020 and issued a report dated 18.11.2020 certifying that petitioner's vision is normal. The report so also furnished by the AIIMS forms part of the record.

The petitioner had filed an additional affidavit on 16.01.2021 highlighting that the respondent-Union of India has ordered an inquiry against Dr. Sidharth Devan, who had conducted irregularities in the medical examination. This Court therefore, proceeded to pass following order on 25.1.2021:-

"1. The petitioner has challenged decision of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board, who have declared the petitioner to be unfit for having low vision.

The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 16.01.2021, wherein it has been stated that Dr. Sidharth Dewan (Ophthalmologist), who had examined the petitioner as well as other candidates is facing enquiry, as he had committed certain irregularities, rather adopted corrupt practices during the medical examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the face of such irregularity, which has been committed by the doctor, who has examined the petitioner, it cannot be said that his examination by the Review Medical Board was in accordance with law, while highlighting that he has three reports in his favour, out of which two are given by AIIMS, Delhi and Jodhpur, certifying that his vision is absolutely normal.

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Additional Solicitor General, fairly accepted the above fact narrated in the additional affidavit aforesaid that an enquiry has been launched against said Doctor, on the basis of various complaints and material.

Having regard to the fact that pursuant to order of this Court, petitioner has been examined by a Board of AIIMS, Jodhpur and considering that an enquiry is pending against Dr. Sidharth Dewan (Ophthalmologist), the assessment made by him cannot be presumed to be correct/unbiased. The petitioner is entitled for one more chance for being examined by a competent and independent doctor.

Mr. Rajpurohit, learned ASG, submits that if this Court feels that it is necessary to re- examine the petitioner, let it be done by the Doctors of respondents, who are well versed with the norms of armed forces and para military forces and are competent.

Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the report of Review Medical Board is, hereby, ignored. The respondents are directed to conduct fresh medical examination of the petitioner in relation to his vision. The same be got done at Military Hospital, Jodhpur.

The Superintendent/ Incharge of the Military Hospital, Jodhpur, is directed to constitute a Medical Board of two Ophthalmologist; fix a date and time under intimation to the petitioner so that he can present himself on the scheduled time.

In case, Ophthalmologist(s) is/are not available in the Military Hospital, the concerned authority shall be at liberty to call one Ophthalmologist from Border Security Force (BSF) or AIIMS, Jodhpur.

The report of the petitioner's examination be sent in a sealed cover to the IG, BSF, Jodhpur on or before 10.02.2021, so that it can be produced before the Court on the next date.

List the matter on 15.02.2021.

Interim order shall continue till then."

In furtherance of the order aforesaid, petitioner's report in a sealed envelop has been placed before this Court by the respondents. Said medical report has been prepared by the Medical Board of BSF.

A perusal of the report produced by the respondents reveals that the petitioner's eyes are normal. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant portion of the report so furnished by the Union of India i.e., "Normal distant visual acuity both eyes. FIT IN EYES".

A photostat copy of the report has been kept on record.

Now it is beyond pale of doubt that rejection of petitioner's candidature alleging that he is having difficulty in distant vision was clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to facts.

In view of the aforesaid, the memorandum dated 11.02.2020, so also review medical examination dated 01.10.2020 (Annex.5 and 9) are hereby quashed.

The petitioner is declared medically fit.

The writ petition therefore succeeds; the Registrar (Judl.) is directed to hand over the demand draft No.955285 to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner's counsel Mr. N.R. Budania forthwith. Petitioner will be free to hand over the same to the issuing Bank, which will cancel it and pay the amount to the petitioner.

The respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner, if he is meritorious and otherwise eligible.

Needful be done within a period of six weeks from today.

As a parting note, this Court would hasten to add that it is high time when the respondents should take some remedial measures to ensure credibility of the Medical Boards. This Court expects that appropriate action would be taken against the Doctor(s) who have vindictively declared the petitioner unfit.