High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 184/2006 BEORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the reject ion of his candidature for appointment as Constable (GD) on the ground of medica l unfitness even after the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital certified that he is medically fit and that the alleged defects relied on by the respondent author ities is normal. The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, a re that pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent authorities in the newspapers inviting applications from male Indian Citizens ordinarily resid ents of the States of Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh for filling up of 2 376 vacancies in the rank of Constables (GD) in CRPF, the petitioner offered hi s candidature. The advertisement amongst other stipulated that the candidate who qualifies in the interview would have to go through detail medical examination to assess his suitability/fitness for the appointment and that a candidate decla red unfit for appointment in CRPF during detail medical examination should be co mmunicated to that effect along with the ground of rejection by the Presiding Of ficer of the recruitment board. The advertisement further stipulated that the ca ndidate if not satisfied with the findings of the Medical Officer/Medical Board can submit an appeal for re-medical examination with a proof of his fitness in t he form of a medical certificate to the appellate authority and in the case of A ssam, it was the respondent No.2, who was to be the appellate authority. The pet itioner was found to be physically qualified in the efficiency test and asked to appear in a written test on 9.10.05 and was declared to have passed in the e xamination. He also passed the interview. He was also underwent medical examinat ion to assess his suitability/fitness for appointment as Constable. However, mos t surprisingly, on 3.11.2005, the Presiding Officer of the Recruitment Board an d the concerned Medical Officer gave a noting in the Admit Card of the petitione r stating that he was medically rejected due to (I) Chest deformity and (2) Ta chycardia. 2. The petitioner, being not satisfied with the findings of the Medical Of ficer/Medical Board, filed an appeal on 8.11.2005 before the respondent No.2 for re-medical examination. The appeal for re-medical examination was accompanied b y proof of his fitness in the form of a medical certificate issued by the Gauhat i Medical College Hospital, which is the competent authority as prescribed by th e respondent authorities. The said certificate was issued by the Gauhati Medical College Hospital after knowing fully well that the candidature of the petitione r had been rejected by the CRPF Medical Officer on the ground of unfitness for s ervice in the CRPF. The petitioner was thereafter asked to appear for re-medical examination at the Group Centre Ground on 27.12.2005, which he accordingly did. The certificate of the Gauhati Medical College Hospital was apparently not acce pted by the respondent authorities, who rejected his recruitment on the ground o f medical unfitness. This prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition.
Decision
3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent authorities and filed th eir affidavit-in-opposition. The principal stance taken by the respondent author ities in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the certificate issued by the Gauha ti Medical College Hospital that the petitioner is medically fit is not accepted by them because issuance of such certificate other than the board of officers d etailed by the department is contrary to the rules and regulations contained in the recruitment manual and they are not bound by such certificate and could come to a different opinion. As the re-medical examination conducted on 27.12.2005 d id not find him to be medically fit, according to the respondent authorities, hi s candidature was rejected. The respondent authorities maintain that the selecti on was done uniformly and with transparency and in accordance with the extant ru les. The re-medical examination was obviously done on 28.12.05, wherein the peti tioner was again faced to be unfit for recruitment. This was how the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected. They contend that the writ petition has, therefore, no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Noticing that the result of the re-medical examination produced by th e respondent authorities was lacking in detail, this Court vide order dated 30.5 .2013 asked the Central Govt. Counsel to file a detailed affidavit on behalf of the respondent authorities to disclose the following information:- 1. 2. 3. examination and if so, the opinion of the radiologist of the respondents and 4. Whether any E.C.G or any such other test of petitioner was done by the r espondents during re-medical examination and if so, opinion of the departmental cardiologist or such other specialist doctor in that regard. The name of the doctors who re-examined the petitioner, The branches of the said doctors from which they belong to, Whether any X-ray of chest of the petitioner was done during re-medical Such information appears to have been necessitated by the fact that t 5. he rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was on the grounds of Chest de formity and Tachyeardia. This Court further observed that it was for the respond ents to establish that the petitioner rightly rejected on medical ground. In com pliance with the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities have filed their ad ditional affidavit. The relevant paragraph of the said additional affidavit is a s follows:- (cid:28)That as per directions of this Court vide order dated 30.052013, the respondent s would like to bring on record the fact that a board of Medical Officers consis ting of Dr.P.N.Solanki, M.O. Dr. Chitran Balu,CMO and Dr. H.R. Patil, CMO of CRP F Base Hospital-3, Guwahati had re-examined the petitioner. All the above doctor s belonged to the CRPF Base Hospital, Guwahati in this regard no X-ray or ECG of the petitioner was done by the review medical board during the Review Medical E xamination (cid:29). 6. At the risk of repetition, it may be noted that the candidature of th e petitioner was rejected on medical ground i.e. Chest deformity and Tachyeardia . Guwahati Medical College Hospital is undoubtedly a reputed medical institution and is considered to be one of the best hospitals in this part of the country. Under such circumstances, the certificate of fitness given by reputed medical in stitution like the Gauhati Medical College Hospital must be given some weightage cannot be simply ignored unless the opinion given therein is questioned for ade quate reason. In the face of the certificate of fitness granted by the Gauhati M edical College Hospital as prescribed by the respondent authorities themselves, the respondent authorities ought to have accepted the same unless the Re-medical Examination Board comprising of Medical Officers of, at least, equivalent quali fications in the subjects concerned comes to a contrary conclusion. If some kind of weightage is not to be given to the certificate issued by the Gauhati Medica l College Hospital, it will be an exercise in futility to require the petitioner to obtain such certificate. True, such certificate cannot be held to be binding upon the respondent authorities, but then they cannot altogether ignore the sam e. Rejection of such certificate in the absence of equally or better opinion by experts of the same qualifications will fall foul of arbitrariness. The affidavi t filed by the respondent authorities did not disclose even now as to whether th ese medical doctors who constituted the Re-medical Examination Board are subject specialists or not. However, it appears that one of the medical officers in the Board is an eye specialist, who can hardly be competent to give his opinion on chest and heart diseases. As for the other medical officers, there is nothing to indicate that they are even specialists at all in any field. Moreover, the addi tional affidavit has also disclosed that no X-ray or ECG of the petitioner was t aken during the re-medical examination. The exercise undertaken by the responden t authorities is far from satisfactory, but is rather illusiory. On the contrary , there is nothing from the materials on record to establish that the findings o f the re-medical examination board were based on objective materials. The re-med ical examination conducted by the board on the petitioner is an eye wash and the findings thereon perverse, which cannot be accepted. I am not unmindful of the limited scope of judicial review available to this writ court. However, when the findings of the respondent authorities are based on no material or are perverse , this Court cannot fold its hand and leave the matter there. I will rather be f ailing in my duty if I decide to choose to hear no evil and speak no evil on the indefensible stance taken by the respondent authorities. The interference of th is Court in the impugned action of the respondent authorities is, therefore, hig hly called for. 7. For the reasons in the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed. The findings of the review medical examination board declaring the petitioner to be unfit for recruitment to the post of Constable is hereby quashed. The respon dent authorities are directed to once again constitute a review medical board co mprising of medical experts equivalent in rank to the medical experts of the Gau hati Medical College Hospital issuing the certificate and re-examine the petitio ner within 45 days from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. A copy of t his order be furnished to the learned CGC for timely communication to the respon dent authorities. The respondent authorities shall notify the petitioner by reli able means of communication as to the date of his appearance before the re-medic al examination board.