Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 792 (GAU)

Subir Sinha v. Union of India

2015-06-22

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel representing all the Respondents. The process for recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles was initiated by Employment Notice dated 03.12.2011. As the present issue is with regard to the physical and medical fitness of the petitioner concerned, no reference is made to the ancillary issues. Under the said Employment Notice dated 03.12.2011 the medical standard in respect of Eye Sight is that apart from the minimum distant vision, the candidate must also possess high colour vision. The medical examination of the petitioner was undertaken on 18.07.2012 and as per the medical report his colour vision was categorised as CP-II at column 3 of the medical report in both the eyes and at column 15 it was indicated as "Colour Defective Safe CP-II" and accordingly the petitioner was declared fit. 2. After the medical examination on 18.07.2012, the petitioner was offered appointment almost about 14 months later i.e. on 10.09.2013 whereby he was directed to report by 09.10.2013 to the Office of DIGP Group Centre CRPF, Khatkhati, District-Karbi Anglong. In view of the fact that the validity of his medical examination conducted earlier on 18.07.2012 having expired, the petitioner was asked to undergo a fresh medical examination before joining in the Force. Pursuant thereto, a fresh medical examination was conducted on 14.10.2013 and on the very same day an order was passed by the DIGP Group Centre, CRPF, Khatkhati indicating that the petitioner is unfit due to Colour Blindness-CP-IV. By the said letter dated 14.10.2013 the petitioner was informed that he can submit an appeal for review medical examination with proof of fitness in the form of a Medical Certificate as in Appendix-G attached to the said letter. The said Appendix-G is a Certificate which is required to be given by a Medical Officer certifying that the case requires a review medical examination. Accordingly on 21.10.2013 the petitioner submitted appeal along with a Medical Certificate of one Dr. Bimal Jyoti Debsikdar, SDM and HO Civil Hospital, Silchar who certified that the petitioner was not suffering from total Colour Blindness. 3. Accordingly on 21.10.2013 the petitioner submitted appeal along with a Medical Certificate of one Dr. Bimal Jyoti Debsikdar, SDM and HO Civil Hospital, Silchar who certified that the petitioner was not suffering from total Colour Blindness. 3. For the purpose of a review medical examination, the petitioner was subjected to the required medical test of his eye sight at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi by an Eye Board convened for the purpose. The said examination by the Eye Board was conducted on 25.11.2013 and the opinion rendered by the Board was that the petitioner is unfit due to Colour Blindness. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner was informed of the opinion/report of the review medical examination vide Letter dated 17.12.2013. 4. Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical re-examination of the petitioner was not in conformity of the uniform guidelines adopted and followed by the respondent authorities in so far as colour vision test is concerned. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that the report of the Eye Board being in contra-distinction to the first medical report dated 18.07.2012, the said report of the Eye Board is not an honest expression of medical opinion. It is further urged that the very purpose of making an appeal on the strength of proof of fitness as certified by a Medical Officer has stood totally defeated, inasmuch as, the said certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Medical and Health Officer, Civil Hospital, Silchar was a totally ignored from consideration. It is the submission of the petitioner that no effort whatsoever was made for reconciling the medical opinion rendered on 14.10.2013 conducted by the Group Centre with that of the Medical Certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Medical and Health Officer, Silchar. Mr. Mazumdar submits that in view of the different reports, an endeavour ought to have been made by the respondent authorities to reconcile the reports and come to an opinion in the light of the observation made by this Court in a similar matter i.e. WP(C) 1003/2006, disposed of on 04.05.2006. 5. Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner does not require any further consideration, inasmuch as, the degree of his Colour Blindness have been fully examined by the Eye Board where he has been declared unfit due to Colour Blindness - CPIV. According to Ms. 5. Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner does not require any further consideration, inasmuch as, the degree of his Colour Blindness have been fully examined by the Eye Board where he has been declared unfit due to Colour Blindness - CPIV. According to Ms. R. Devi all formalities and remedies have been exhausted by the petitioner and the outcome of the final exercise is that he is not fit for appointment in the Force. Ms. R. Devi relying upon the statement and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition submits that the writ petition does not merit consideration. 6. The relevant records pertaining to the medical examination conducted by the Eye Board has been produced. 7. The rival submissions as well as the records so produced have been noted and perused by this Court. As the adjudication of this case is confined to the review medical examination conducted on 25.11.2013, as such consideration of the original records produced on behalf of the respondents assumes utmost relevance. From the said records it is found that the Certificate in the form of Appendix-G i.e. the Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer, Silchar is in place. To reiterate, the said Certificate is part of the appeal made by the petitioner for a review medical examination and was the basis of the said appeal. A perusal of the original records do not go to show that the opinion rendered by the Eye Board was done upon due consideration or having regard to the Medical Certificate issued by the SDM & HO, Civil Hospital, Silchar. The consideration of the said Certificate was imperative for due consideration of the petitioner's prayer for medical re-examination by the Eye Board. The same ought to have been given due weightage. The fact that the Certificate of the SDM & HO did not at all fall for consideration is apparent from the original records so produced. Also, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents it nowhere discloses that such consideration of the Certificate was made. 8. Referring to the provisions under the CRPF Rules, 1955 and as provided under Rule 12 thereof, it postulates that prior to enrolment in the CRPF, a Health Certificate in the prescribed form is required to be signed and issued by the authorities mentioned in the Rules. 8. Referring to the provisions under the CRPF Rules, 1955 and as provided under Rule 12 thereof, it postulates that prior to enrolment in the CRPF, a Health Certificate in the prescribed form is required to be signed and issued by the authorities mentioned in the Rules. The said Rules also envisages that one such authority is a Civil Surgeon who is a civilian doctor. The proposition being that the opinion of a civilian doctor for the purpose of recruitment in the CRPF is not an alien concept or unknown to the Force. In a given situation a question may arise that a person may have to subject himself to medical examination by a civilian doctor if aggrieved of an examination made by the Medical officer of the Force. The right to approach a civilian doctor is not altogether disallowed by the provisions under the CRPF Rules, 1955. In any event if there is a difference of opinion between the reports given by a Medical Officer of the Force and a Civilian Doctor, the matter has to be brought to a resolution and for that matter the opinion of a civilian doctor cannot be eschewed having regard to the fact that the Rules do recognise the opinion of a civilian doctor. 9. From the materials on record it appears that a Certificate issued by a civilian doctor was in place at the time when review medical examination of the petitioner was conducted by the Eye Board. The fact that the said Certificate of the civilian doctor did not fall for consideration is apparent on the face of it as neither the original records makes any endorsement to that effect nor the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents makes any disclosure to support that the Certificate of the civilian doctor was taken into consideration. Coupled with the fact that the opinion of a civilian doctor is recognised under the Rules, the primary endeavour on the part of the State Respondents ought to have been to reconcile the reports of the Medical Officer of the Force and the Certificate of the civilian doctor before arriving at the final decision that the petitioner was unfit due to Colour Blindness. The said exercise was, however not done by the Eye Board. 10. The said exercise was, however not done by the Eye Board. 10. In view of the above, while interfering with the assessment of the Eye Board dated 25.11.2013, the case of the petitioner is remitted back to the State Respondents with direction that re-examination be conducted by a team of doctors, one of whom will be a civilian doctor with adequate experience in the field of Ophthalmology in order that a final decision with regard to the colour vision of the petitioner can be put at rest. It is made clear that the medical examination of the petitioner in terms of the order passed today be completed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the aforesaid exercise of conducting medical re-examination of the petitioner be done by demonstrating a complete and credible examination of his physical condition in so far as his colour vision is concerned. 11. In view of the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. 12. The records produced by Ms. R. Devi are returned herewith.