'Opinion Of Dermatologist Cannot Be Ignored', Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Examination Of Candidate By Review Medical Board

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that directed the Staff Selection Committee to constitute a fresh Medical Board to re-examine the Respondent for determining whether he was fit for duties or not. The Court held that the Respondent was declared fit by the Dermatologist whose opinion was sought by the Review Medical Board and thus ignoring such opinion and declaring the Respondent unfit was not justified. Background The Respondent applied for recruitment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police. The Review Medical Board declared him unfit based on the ground that he suffered from a "Haemorrhoid". The Respondent got himself re-examined at a hospital, obtaining a certificate declaring him fit. The Counsel for the Respondent submitted before the Tribunal that while declaring the Respondent unfit, it was not notified as to how the medical condition could hinder the functional performance of the duty as a Constable. The Counsel relied on the decision in Teekam Singh Meena v SSC, wherein it was held that the disability had to be categorized in terms of the guidelines or rules/instructions and that the categorization had to be "Fit/Unfit or Temporarily Unfit', which was not followed in the present case. Relying on the medical records of the Respondent, the Counsel submitted that it was a very small umbilical defect of less than 5 mm, not requiring any surgical treatment and thus the Respondent could be considered fit. The Counsel further relied on Jatinder Singh v Union of India and Ors wherein the Petitioner suffered from umblical hernia and got operated for the same before the examinations and the Tribunal held that the RMB was bound to consider case of the petitioner for appointment as driver considering he had already been operated. The Counsel for the Respondent also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh v the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr wherein the nature of ailment and medical condition was considered and the issue was held to be remediable and not of any permanent character. Accordingly, the authorities were directed to constitute a fresh Board of Medical Professionals to re-examine the Petitioner. Referring further to the decision taken in Deepak Yadav v Staff Selection Commission, the Tribunal directed the respondents to get the Respondent's medical examination done afresh by a duly constituted Medical Board. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners approached the High Court. Contentions of the Petitioner: The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after the Review Medical Board had disqualified the Respondent, a re-examination could not have been held. Submitting that since the Respondent did not allege any mala fide intent of the Review Medical Board, the Counsel stated that the Tribunal had erred in directing re-re-examination. The Counsel further argued, emphasizing the need for fitness in posts concerning Police, that the standards of medical fitness were necessarily higher and more stringent because the duties of police being a disciplined force concerned the security and safety of the citizens. The Counsel for the Petitioner relied on several judgements including Himanshu Bansal v UOI , Abhigyan Singh v UOI , Priyanka, Satender Kumar Yadav v UOI , Vijender Singh, Ashish Kumar Pandey v UOI , Rockey v UOI , Shailly Upadhyay v UOI, Adhir Kumar Verma v CRPF, Priti Yadav v UOI, Gaurav Dalal v UOI, Jonu Tiwari v UOI, Pavan Kumar v UOI, Rishi Bhardwaj v UOI, Jatin v UOI and Yogesh v UOI. Contentions of the Respondent: The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Review Medical Examination was conducted in a hurry after the initial Detailed Medical Examination. Moreover, it was submitted that there were discrepancies between the report of the DME and the RME and lack of specialists in the DME and RME Boards. The Counsel also stated that the Review Medical Board did not even consider the opinion of the doctors or hospitals to which the case was referred. The Counsel referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Dharmvir Singh, NTPC v Nakul Das and other judgements including Prashan Kumar v UOI, Kamlesh Kumar Kamal v UOI, Nisha v UOI and Faizan Siddiqui v Sashastra Seema Bal. Findings of the Court: Emphasizing “judicial conscience”, the Court held that if it seems to the Court that the candidate has suffered injustice, the Court must interfere within its competence and set things right. The Court relied on NTPC v Nakul Das and Veer Pal Singh v Ministry of Defence and other judgements to arrive at a conclusion. In the decision in Nakul Das, the Supreme Court had directed re-examination of the candidate after a duly constituted Medical Board had disqualified him. It was held, “we are of the opinion that it would be in the...

'Opinion Of Dermatologist Cannot Be Ignored', Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Examination Of Candidate By Review Medical Board

Syed Nazarat Fatima

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Opinion Of Dermatologist Cannot Be Ignored', Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Examination Of Candidate By Review Medical Board

Syed Nazarat Fatima

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers