K. .P lvanka v. Un ion a ic la ra w e r c d n e F

Petition under Article 2?6 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ' direction or order more particularly one in the nat ure of a Writ of [/landamus, declaring the Memorandum Result of Review Med ical thereby Examinationdaled1611212023issuedbytherespondentno.3and declaring the petitioner as unfit in the Recruitment of constable/Fire (Male) 2021 in the Central lndustrial Security Force, as being illegal' arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and further violative of A(icle 14' 1 6 and 21 of lhe Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitionerforthepostofConstable(Fire)intheRecruitmentofConstable/Ftre (l'Ilale) 2021 in the Central lndustrial Security Force -:IA rt13l ,:.j lA NO: 1 OF 202! Petition urder Section '15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be rrreased to refer the petrtioner for merricar examination to any independent medical coard, pending disposal of the above: writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRTNIVASA RAO BODDULURT Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. p.N.V. MAHA LAKSHMI REp SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLtctToR GEN. OF tNDtA The Court made the lbllowing: ORDER -t3 HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA W IT PETIT ON o.3485s FzlJ23 o DER: Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. p.N.V.Maha Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Th e Detitioner ADDToach d the Cou u nder: see tno D rave ras ".....to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memorandum Result of Review tqedical Examination dated 16-12-2023 issued by the respondent no.3 and thereby declaring the petitioner as unfit in the Recruitment of Constable/Fire (Male) 2021 in the Central Industrial Security Force, as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and further violative of Article 14, 16 and ZL oF the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner For the post of Constable (Fire) in the Recruitment of Constable/Fire (Male) 2O2l in the Central Industrial Security Force and pass....,, I 2 SN,J wp_14855_2023

3. The case of the petitionerl in brief is that the petitioner applied for tre post of Constable (Fire) in Central lndustrial Security Force under the 2021 recruitment and cleared all stages' including the written and physical tests However' the petitioner was declared medically unfit vide memorandum result of Revie\^/ Medical Examination dated 16'12'2023 due to defective visiorr which is recorded as Right Eye 6/9 and Left Eye 6/18' In the Review Medical Examination. the petitioner's vision was recordetl as Right Eye 616 and Left Eve elll., yet he was again declared unfit without clear justificatior. However, independent examination!; from t'aro reputed Eye Hospitals confirmed the petitioner's vision as Right E:ye 6/6 and Left Eye 6/6, indicating no defect' Aggrieved by the Review Medical Examinaticn result dated 16'12'2023 issued oy the respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petitior'' P 4 U ED TH RE un I T n s n h re nde r: h r b n h o o f e e it is sr.rbmitted "18. RePIY with regard to denied. In the that the averments made in the instant ci:se, during the medical examination carried out by Para (9), pa ra is 3 SN,J w_34855 2023 both the medical board, the eyesight of the petitioner was found different due to board methods/process, which is as follows: - * Natural Method: First reading is taken in a normal method by making the candidate read the letter from a certain distance and accordingly eyesight status recorded. This process was followed in DME IS * Method using lenses and equipment,s: Eyes were checked by using different lenses and distances both to give the exact status of eyesight. This process is followed during RME and it gives correct eyesight power of candidate. * Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital senior Doctor and their team have reviewed the eyesight in frorlt of doctor,s review board, executive board and all candidates in a transparent matter. Accordingly, their result was declared.,,

5.7 under: e eti on rti ed A o 3 r er s "This Hon,ble Court may be to refer the petitioner for medical examination independent medical board, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,, pleased to any 4 SN,.I wP :i4855-2023 indePendent Medical Board' Learne,l counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits disposed of referring the petitioner 6 that the writ Per:ition could be for medical exanlination to any 7. Learned counsel apPearing on behalf of th(l Central Government- oP loses the said prayer saying thai the same is not of the Review Meclical Boinrd is final permissible sinc e the decision and no further appeal will be entertained against the fin':iing of the Review Meciical Boa rd ' 8. Learrred counsel appearing on behalf 01' the respondents further contencls that there is no signature on the reports furnished by the petitioner, and therefore' the petitioner's case cannot be referred for ntedical opinion to an independerrt authr:rity' which could open the pandora box for similar cases in future' 9 r oon dents 2

1.1 2. 020 a n c e e rl n la ces iud q ment theH iqh Cou rt of Delhi -alne!u- !€lhtjD th rs'i and In ia and o t es I e n o 8a *K. .P lvanka Vs. Un ion a ic la w e r c d n e F: l i I I I I I I t I i I II I I I 5 SN,J wp 34855 2023 "8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in priti yadav Vs.. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs.. Union of India 2020 SCC Online Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online Del B0B and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online Del 924, held that once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties oF the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, oDrnlon of Driv te or othe r qovernm nt doctors to the co trarv cannot be acce ted inasmuch as the recruite oersonn I are reourred to work for th Forces and not for the Drivate doctors r the oov rnment ho Ditals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces. In fact, the case of priti yadav (supra) also related to 'cubital valgus,. It is also to be noted that the specialists that the petitioner had consulted had also found that the petitioner suffered from ,cubital valgus' and therefore, the findings by the Medical Boards were not wrong.

9. What may seem as a minor difference in the assessment of the Civil doctors in comparison to the assessment of the Medical Boards, may blow up into a serious health condition during the course of service with the CAPFs. It is not in the interest of either the police 6 SN,J w:) 34855 2023 I Forces or candidates that their medical problenrs are brusherd a:;rde only on the plea that it was a quesi:ion of emplo,Tment. The general health of candidates vrrculd be permanenl.ly lmpacted due to the stress, both physical and rr enta , on account of these medical shortcorlings. On the: other hand, the government would be saddl(:)d with a Poli:e [:(]rce where such personnel would seerk soft postinqs lecause of their health condit ons arrd low medical category. This would lead to dlssatisfaction amongst the personnel in the Forces as sorrre people, who ought not to have been taken into the Forces, would alway:; benefit, whereas the others would b,: mostl'/ faced with hard postings and duties." DISCU SION AND CON CLUSION:

10. A bare pr:rusal of the averments made in the courrter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents indicates that, it is clr:ar that the decision of the Review Medical Board is final anC no further appeal can be entertained against the finding of the Review M,,:dical Board and there is nc provision of re-medical examinat on, if the candidate is declared unfit in Review Medical Examination and fr.lrt.her para 1B of the counter affidavit indicates that Sarojini Devi t:ye Hospital Senior Doctor ,:nd their team have reviewed the eyesigt'rt in front of doctor's Review Board, Executive Board and all candidates in a transparent ma nner and thereafter only had cleclared the result, 7 SN,J wp_34855_2023 therefore, this Court opines that the prayer as sought for by the petitioner is not permissible.

11. Tak ln into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, d) The view of the various Courts in the Judgments referred to at para '9'of the present order, The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions , if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPU TY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, l One CC to SRl. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI' Z. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUI\IAR, Dy' S oLr vocate [OPUC] CITOR GEN. OF INDIA \ loPUCl

3. Two CD Copies B tVI BS W b HIGH COURT DATED:2310412025 CC TODAY 1 i ,l .a"z.-- a. I' < ? ? !'llJ -\..,..f 4\ M I,i !,'jl '.*-... ,' t: l) t \ ORDER WP.No.34855 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 5 1 ?\ Nt 6 i' i t t r t l I t r I I IL