High Court · 2009

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri D.Sur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Pathak, learned C GC appearing for the Respondents. 2. The challenge in the Writ Petition is against an order dated 31.12.2007 discharging the petitioner from service on the ground that he has been found to be medically unfit. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, may be set out at the threshold. By a notice dated 06.01.2007 published in the Rojgar Samachar applications were invited for filling up, inter allia, vacant posts of Head Constable in the Centr al Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF). The applicants we re required to submit their applications to the Additional D.I.G.P., Group Centr e, Lucknow (UP), and the Additional D.I.G.P., Bhopal (M.P.). The petitioner was a candidate for the aforesaid post and after qualifying in all the rounds of sel ection, he was informed by a communication dated 10.10.2007 that he had been sel ected for appointment as Head Constable. By the aforesaid communication the peti tioner was also informed that if he was to accept the offer of appointment, he s hould report to the Additional D.I.G.P., Group Centre, 9th Mile, Amerigog, Guwa hati. According to the petitioner, he reported to the specified authority and he was allowed to join on 08.11.2007. The petitioner has further stated that thoug h he was subjected to a thorough medical examination at the time of the selectio n, by a communication dated 23.11.2007, he was asked to undergo a further medica l examination, which took place on 06.12.2007. Thereafter, by a letter dated 31. 12.2007 issued by the Additional D.I.G.P., CRPF Group Centre at Guwahati, the pe titioner was informed that he was found to be medically unfit due to the followi ng reasons: (cid:28)HYPERTENSION TACHYCARDIA ECG NORMAL SINUS RHYTHEM RATE 82 EARLY PREORDIAL R/S TRANSITION LVH BY VOLTAGE ABNORMAL ECG (cid:29) 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 12.12.2007 he had got h imself medically examined in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati and he was certified by the Doctors of the Cardiology Department to be medically f it. The petitioner has also stated that on 09.01.2008 he had been examined by th e Professor and Head of the Department of Cardiology, M.L.N. Medical College, Al lahabad, who had opined that the petitioner was medically fit. The petitioner, t herefore, applied for a re-medical examination, which was carried out on 31.01.2 008, 01.02.2008 and 02.02.2008. The petitioner has stated that the said re-medic al examination was conducted by a panel of two doctors, one of whom is an Orthop edic Surgeon and the other is a Child Specialist. The petitioner was not examine d by a Cardiologist. It is not very clear as to whether the petitioner was infor med of the result of the said medical re-examination and, if so, at what point o f time such result was conveyed to him. However, from the pleadings contained in the Writ Petition, it appears that the petitioner was not allowed to perform hi s duties against which action he had filed a Departmental Appeal, which, howeve r, did not yield any result. Accordingly, this Writ Petition has been filed. 4. ed the records in original. of the re-examination of the petitioner. 5. The stand taken in the affidavit filed by the Respondents is to the effe ct that the petitioner was not allowed to join on 08.11.2007 as has been contend ed by him in the Writ Petition. On the said date the petitioner had reported for duty. The Respondents, in the affidavit filed, have further stated that a decis ion was taken by the I.G.P., CRPF at Shillong that all candidates like the petit ioner, reporting to the authority consequent upon their selection, should under go a fresh medical examination before joining irrespective of the earlier medic al examination. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner underw The Respondents have filed an affidavit in the case and have also produc ent a medical examination at the time of his recruitment, i.e., on 19.05.2007, he was medically examined, once again, in the CRPF Group Centre, Guwahati on 06. 12.2007. In the course of such medical examination the petitioner was found to b e suffering from high-blood pressure, i.e., 164/120 and his ECG Report was also found to be abnormal. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, he was re- examined on 31.01.2008, 01.02.2008 and 02.02.2008. On each of the said dates the blood pressure level of the petitioner was monitored and was found to be unacc eptable. In this regard the specific details have been mentioned in the affidavi t of the Respondents. Consequently, the petitioner was declared to be medically unfit. In so far as the allegation of the petitioner that he was examined by an Orthopedic Surgeon and a Child Specialist is concerned, the Respondents contend that for the purpose of monitoring the blood pressure level, the aforesaid doct ors are fully competent though they may not be specialized in the field of cardi ology. 6. The above facts would go to show that the only question that has to be d ecided by the Court in the present case is whether the blood pressure level of t he petitioner measured and monitored on three days, i.e., on 31.01.2008, 01.02.2 008 and 02.02.2008 should be accepted. This is particularly in the context of th e fact that in the initial medical examination of the petitioner held on 19.5.20 07 he was found fit and his blood pressure level was found to be normal by the d octors of the CRPF and same was the position in the medical examination of the p etitioner by doctors other than those of the CRPF, the reports of which examinat ion are available as a part of the Writ Petition or a part of the original recor ds placed before the Court by the Sri B.Pathak, learned CGC. The further questio n that has to be decided is whether the blood pressure of the petitioner monito red by the Orthopedic Surgeon and the Child Specialist should have the acceptanc e of the Court. 7. There is no material before the Court to indicate that the findings of e ither set of doctors, i.e., those belonging to the Force and those outside the F orce is incorrect. At the same time both the sets of conflicting reports cannot co-exist. In this regard it must also be noted that in the initial medical exa mination of the petitioner by the Doctors of the CRPF, Lucknow, the petitioner’s blood pressure level was found to be normal. Evaluation of the medical conditio n of the petitioner on 31.01.2008, 01.02.2008 and 02.02.2008 was by Doctors othe r than Specialists in the field of Cardiology. The specific notice of the said f act that has been taken by the Court should not be understood to be that an Orth opedic Surgeon or a Child Specialist is not competent to monitor the blood press ure level of a person. Far from it, the said fact has only been taken into accou nt in the Court’s attempt to resolve the several irreconcilable reports that hav e confronted the Court in the present case. In a number of decisions, in like si tuations, involving recruitment of CRPF Constable, details of which need not be specifically mentioned, the Court has taken the view that irreconcilable medica l reports should be reconciled by having another round of medical examination of the person involved. There is no reason why a similar approach should not be made in the present case. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be medically examined, once again, by a team of three doctors, two of whom should belong to the field of Cardiology. Further action by the Respondents in the matter will de pend on the outcome of such medical examination. The Respondents will intimate t he date of such medical examination of the petitioner, whereafter, the petitione r shall offer himself for such examination. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.