Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 268 (JK)

Avtar Singh v. State

2001-11-07

A.M.MIR

body2001
1. The petitioner was selected as a constable in July, 1996. His appointment order was not issued. The ground for refusing issuance of such order was that there has been an old amputation of his middle finger which was taken to be a loss of part of the body, making him unfit for employment. He approached this court with this petition for a relief in the form of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take him into service. His case before the court projected the following two grounds:- 1. That the old amputation did not construe a deformity which could be termed as loss of a part of the body; 2. That one Chatter Singh also had the same disability who was taken into service. Thus the petitioner was discriminated. 2. Mr. Parihar, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently denied both the grounds. According to him the Medical Board has declared him unfit for police service and this court cannot substitute its view for that of the experts who have examined the petitioner. He has also termed the exercise of the petitioner to claim equality with Chatter Singh as one in despair and not tenable. 3. It is not established that both the candidates had the same sort of deformity. On the other hand Mr. Parihar while filing the objections has vividly made it clear that in Chatter Singhs case the finding of the experts was that his deformity did not render Chatter Singh incapable of performing any police duty. 4. I do not find anything on record show that Chatter Singh and the petitioner had the same deformity which could enable the petitioner to make a claim of discrimination. That being the position the second ground has no legs to stand and therefore, fails. 5. The claim and counter claims of the parties qua the first ground have made it imperative for the court to go through the medical report, one placed on record as R2 with the objections, which reads as under:- Certified that Shri Avtar Singh S/O Bajar Dev R/O Bishnah has been examined by the Standing Medical Board, Govt. Medical College/Associated Hospitals Jammu. The opinion of H.O.D. of Orthopaedics was also sought. He has old amputation of Terminal Phalanx Rt. middle finger. He also had varicosity of veins Rt. leg for which he has been operated. There is no functional disability.� 6. Medical College/Associated Hospitals Jammu. The opinion of H.O.D. of Orthopaedics was also sought. He has old amputation of Terminal Phalanx Rt. middle finger. He also had varicosity of veins Rt. leg for which he has been operated. There is no functional disability.� 6. A full-fledged eye view of the above reproduce certificate makes it clear that the petitioner had an old amputation of terminal phalanx middle finger. In addition to this varicosity of vains, rt. leg for which he had been operated upon was detected. The Board towards the conclusion of the report opines that there was no functional disability. Infact the certificate needs interpretation for a common man and the court is not in any way better than a common man in appreciating as to whether or not the deformity detected would render the petitioner unable to serve the police Department. 7. Experts view happens to be the last word. Experts are taken to be the masters of their field and courts rely upon their findings unless the same run counter to authentic authorities on the subject. It is with this conviction that courts do not substitute their views for those of the experts. When Boards are constituted, it is always expected that such Boards will bring forth the cumulative wisdom of the members on the subject. Intact such opinion should be based on recognised principles of the concerned field. In the present case the Board of experts is expected to tender such an opinion which conforms to the known standards of medical jurisprudence and in particular the subject of Orthopaedics. Such opinion should not conflict with any treaties. The report of experts in the present case does not lead us anywhere. Therefore, in peculiar circumstances of the case, I with the agreement of learned counsel for the parties, admit this petition to hearing and dispose of the same at this stage with a direction to the standing Medical Board of the Government Medical College/Associated Hospitals, Jammu to re-examine the petitioner and furnish their opinion with respect to his physical fitness or otherwise to serve the police department. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the Principal Government Medical College, Jammu (Chairman of the Standing Medical Board) on 26-11-2001 or 27-11-2001 at 10 AM. The Chairman shall constitute/assemble the Board and tender his conclusive opinion to the Police Department. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the Principal Government Medical College, Jammu (Chairman of the Standing Medical Board) on 26-11-2001 or 27-11-2001 at 10 AM. The Chairman shall constitute/assemble the Board and tender his conclusive opinion to the Police Department. That finding of the Board will finally determine the eligibility of the petitioner. In case the Board clears him of, then appropriate orders of appointment be issued, without causing any further delay. Copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the Principal Govt. Medical College, Jammu for information.