Judgment · High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Baruah, learned CGC. The petitioners who are the aspirants for appointment as Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force (BSF) are aggrieved by rejection of their candidatu re on the ground of being medically unfit. According to the respondents, the pet itioners are medically unfit because of (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) beyond the prescribed limit. It is an admitted position that when the petitioners were rejected at the first instance, as per the provision of selection a Review Medical Board was al so constituted to re-examine the case of the petitioner. However, the Review Med ical Board having rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground of defect ive (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) beyond the permissible limit, they have filed the instant writ petition. While the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Review Me dical Board was not constituted with an expert in the field, Mr. Barauh, learned CGC submits that to find out such a deformity no such expert is required. Howe ver, he submits that three members Board was competent enough to identify the de fect. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated thus: (cid:28)9. That the petitioners state that they had tried to find out the details of th e deformity which have been made ground of their rejection and they have been gi ven to understand that (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) is not a deformity as such but is the me asurement of the deviation at the elbow of a person. The (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) of elb ow is defined as the angle formed by the long axis of the arm and the long axis of the fore arm in the frontal plain. In clinical practice the (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) is generally assessed in full extension by radiograph or by standard goniometer . The (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) permits the arm to be swung without contact with hips an d is greater in the dominant limb than in the non dominant limb. Thus it would b e evident that all persons have (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) in their arms and the presence of the (cid:28)Carrying Angle’ is not a disability. In such circumstances the rejection of petitioner alleging (cid:28)Carrying Angle (cid:29) by the doctor’s of the respondent autho rity is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is liable to be set aside and quashed. (cid:29) On the other hand, the respondents in their counter affidavit have state d thus: (cid:28)7. That the statements made in para 8 of the petition are incorrect and hence d enied. It is denied that the Review Medical Board acting on a most perfunctory matter, perused the earlier rejection letters and without subjecting the petitio ners to requisite medical test verbally informed the petitioner that their cases are being medical rejected again and they would be informed to writing later on . In this respect your respect your deponent begs to state that the carrying an gle cal be easily noticed and found out by asking the patient to stand in the up right anatomical position i.e. the forearm is extended and supine. In the instant case the petitioners were communicated about the findings of the review medical board and the same was acknowledged by them by signing in the med ical board sheet. Only those candidates, who were declared medically fit on re-e xamination, were allowed to join the force.

#8. That with regard to the statements made in para 9 of the petition, your depon ent beg to state that carrying angle noted in respect of the petitioners was bey ond the normal range of 10-150 in case of male and therefore not conforming to t he standard laid down for recruitment of constables in CAPFSs and therefore the decision of rejection is taken which is sustainable and correct in the eyes of l aw.

#9. That the statements made in para 10 of the petition are incorrect and hence d enied. It is denied that the review medical board did not consist of any doctor specialized in the disease/deformities i.e. carrying angle allegedly suffered by the petitioner. It is further denied that no medical test was conducted on the petitioner. In this respect your deponent begs to state that the review medical board consisted of a chief medical officer as the Presiding Officer with one me dical specialist and one surgical specialist who re-examined the petitioner with diligence as per the laid down standards and carried out required test as deeme d fit, confirming the diagnosis of the recruiting medical officer, thereby decla ring the candidate UNFIT. In view of the same the decision of the review medical board is justified, sustainable and correct in the eye of law. (cid:29) From the above stand of the respondents what is seen is that the petitio ners were informed about the requisite medical test. On review also they were in formed the results thereafter and the petitioners duly acknowledged the same by signing the Medical Board sheet. According to the respondents, Carrying Angle in respect of the petitioners was beyond the normal range of 10.15 and therefore d id not conform the standard laid down for recruitment of constable. The responde nts have also denied that the Review Medical Board did not consist of any Doctor specialised in the disease/deformities. As disclosed in the affidavit, the Review Medical Board consisted of Chi ef Medical Officer as the Presiding Officer with one medical specialist and one surgical specialist which examined the petitioner as per the laid down standard conforming to the diagnosis. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioners was not duly considered by the Review Medical Board. If the petitioners were no t found medically fit by the recruiting Medial Officer and by the Review Medica l Board, there cannot be any direction for further examination of the petitioner s by another Medical Board. The writ petition is dismissed.