Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1326 (HP)

Dildar Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-09-23

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following substantive relief: "(i) That the respondents No. 2 and 3 may very kindly be directed to get the medical of the petitioner done with respect to platelet count keeping in view the report Annexure P-4." 2. The undisputed facts are that vide communication dated 21st September, 2013, respondent No.4 informed the respondent No.2 of nominating the candidature of the petitioner for the post of police constable regular male (District Kangra) with a further request for appointing him subject to verification of the documents by the employer. 3. Pursuant to such communication, medical examination of the petitioner was conducted at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on 22.10.2013 where he was examined by Senior Medical Officer, who held "Deranged LFT & Platelet counts, I do consider this a disqualification for the employment for the post of constable". 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was again examined by a Medical Board consisting of three Medical Officers and Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala. The Board after examining the petitioner opined that the petitioner had decreased platelet counts and in the opinion of the Board this was disqualification for employment for the post of Police Constable. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal to the police authorities against the report/certificate issued by the Medical Board, which was accepted and accordingly, Review Medical Board was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Palampur with other different Medical Specialists as Members. The Review Medical Board after thorough medical examination found the petitioner to be suffering with "Decreased Platelets Counts" which again was considered to be a disqualification for employment to the post of Constable. 5. After this admitted position, the petitioner claims to have come to Shimla on 20.12.2013 and got his platelet count done from a private laboratory at Shimla which has given its report, wherein the platelet count of the petitioner was 152 as against the requirement of 140-450. On the basis of such report, he approached the Chief Medical Officer for medical re-examination which has been refused and it is on this basis that the petitioner has filed the present petition claiming therein the relief as set up in para-1 (supra). 6. On the basis of such report, he approached the Chief Medical Officer for medical re-examination which has been refused and it is on this basis that the petitioner has filed the present petition claiming therein the relief as set up in para-1 (supra). 6. As observed earlier, all the averments made in the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents save and except the averments regarding the fresh report received by the petitioner from a private laboratory, the authenticity and veracity whereof has been disputed by the respondents. 7. I have heard Mr. K.S. Banyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records carefully. 8. The petitioner cannot claim his medical re-examination on the strength of the report (Annexure P-4) issued by the private laboratory because no authenticity can be attached to the same, but then the petitioner has expressed two fears: (i) that the reports issued by the Senior Medical Officer, then by Medical Board and lastly by the Review Medical Board may be used against the petitioner in future selections; and (ii) that since his name has been sponsored by the respondent No.4, his name would be struck off from the rolls of the Employment Ex-servicemen Cell. The fears of the petitioner are indeed well founded. Undisputedly, "deranged LFT & platelet counts" is not something which cannot be treated and, therefore, cannot be considered to be a disease or some disorder which is of a permanent nature. Similarly, the mere fact that the name of the petitioner has been sponsored by the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell for the post of Constable and for the reasons stated, the petitioner could not be selected, cannot be a ground for striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the Ex-servicemen Employment Cell so as to debar his right to future vacancies for all times to come. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed and it is clarified that the medical report issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Medical Board and Review Medical Board, will not come in the way while considering the case of the petitioner for future vacancies for the post of Constable or any other post for which the petitioner may be eligible. It is further clarified that the disqualification therein would only be considered as one time disqualification. It is further clarified that the disqualification therein would only be considered as one time disqualification. The petitioner would be re-examined at the time of fresh selection. The respondent No.4 is also restrained and directed not to strike off the name of the petitioner merely on account of his name having earlier been sponsored for the post of Constable. 10. Petition stands disposed of on above terms, so also the pending application(s) if any.