Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1054 (JHR)

Kumari Sapna v. Union Of India

2018-05-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER S. N. Pathak, J. - Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for quashing the medical report dated 19.05.2017 (Annexure-8) and further review thereof dated 22.07.2017 (Annexure-11), whereby and where under she has been declared unfit without expressing any opinion regarding physical defect pointed out in both medical reports. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider her case for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CISF in connection with the advertisement issued by the Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs. 2. The fact of the case in short is that an advertisement for recruitment of Head Constable/ Ministerial in CISF - 2015 for direct candidates and HC/ Min (LDCE) - 2015 for departmental candidates of CISF was published by the Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, with closing date as 07.03.2015. Applications were invited from male and female citizen to fill up the 700 vacancies in the rank of Head Constable (Ministry of Home Affairs) in the pay scale of Rs. 5,200 - 20,200 with a grade pay of Rs. 2,400 in the CISF. Pursuant to the said advertisement, petitioner applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) under the category of Scheduled Caste and was declared successful in Physical Standard Test as well as written examination and Skill Test conducted for recruitment of Head Constable (Ministerial) in CISF and was called for medical examination. Upon her medical examination, petitioner was declared unfit due to deformity of feet (Brachymetatarsia of feet) and vide letter dated 19.05.2017, she was duly informed to follow procedures to apply for review medical examination within a period of 15 days from the date of Medical Examination in case she is not satisfied with such medical disqualification. Contrary to that, when petitioner approached before RIMS, she was issued medical fitness certificate dated 22.05.2017 holding her physically fit for any duty. Further, the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi dated 25.05.2017 categorically opined that there is no functional deformity and as such, petitioner is fit for employment and finding of the Medical Board is error of record. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the Review Medical Examination on 22.07.2017 where again she was declared unfit due to deformity of feet (Brachymetatarsia of feet). Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the Review Medical Examination on 22.07.2017 where again she was declared unfit due to deformity of feet (Brachymetatarsia of feet). Upon reference for medical examination, the petitioner had also approached before Appollo, BSR Hospital, where the Doctor had found her fit for any job on 19.07.2017 but CISF Medical Board has declared her unfit. It is case of the petitioner that she does not suffer from any deformity of the feet and merely on eye estimation and in an arbitrary manner, they declared her unfit. The medical fitness certificate dated 25.05.2017 itself is a reliable evidence to state that the report by medical board, CISF is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, he has knocked door of this Court. 3. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner does not suffer from any deformity of feet, which is also apparent from the report of RIMS dated 22.05.2017, Medical Fitness Certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi dated 25.05.2017 as well as report of Appollo, BSR Hospital, where the Doctor had found her fit for any job on 19.07.2017 but CISF Medical Board has declared her unfit without any rhyme or reason. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents cannot declare a candidate of having congenital malformation "Brachymetatarsia 4t" metatarsal of both feet" or any defect or medically unfit only on eyes estimations and without examining the feet medically. Learned counsel further submits that the medical fitness certificate dated 25.05.2017, whereby she was declared having no functional deformity, is a reliable piece of evidence to state that the report by Medical Board, CISF is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to declare the petitioner unfit in mechanical way without expressing any opinion regarding physical defect pointed out in both the medical reports. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to declare the petitioner unfit in mechanical way without expressing any opinion regarding physical defect pointed out in both the medical reports. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI submits that petitioner is having deformity of feet (Brachymetatarsia of feet) which has been established in Medical Examination of the petitioner dated 19.05.2017 as well as Review Medical Report dated 22.07.2017 and therefore, the Medical Board as well as Review Medical Board have opined her to be medically unfit in view of Guideline of Medical Examination Test for recruitment in CAPF, NSG, NAR (MHA Guideline A.V|.1/2014 - Rectt (SSB), dated 20.05.2014. Learned counsel submits that as per the said Guideline, there should not be any congenital malformation or defect and since petitioner was having deformity of feet (Brachymetatarsia of feet) and as such, her candidature has been rightly rejected. 5. In the facts and circumstances, I find that this is a fit case where the petitioner may be referred for a fresh medical examination on following grounds: (i) Though petitioner was declared unfit due to deformity of feet (Brachymetatarsia of feet) by the medical examination and Review Medical Examination, but When petitioner approached before RIMS, she was issued medical fitness certificate dated 22. 05.2017 holding her physically fit for any duty. Further, the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi dated 25.05.2017 also categorically opined that there is no functional deformity. Petitioner had also approached before reputed Appollo, BSR Hospital, Where the Doctor had found her fit for any job but CISF Medical Board has declared her unfit. (ii) It is case of the petitioner that she does not suffer from any deformity of the feet and merely on eye estimation and in an arbitrary manner, she has been declared unfit by the Medical Board of CISF while she has been found fit by the Medical Board of RIMS, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi as well as Appollo, BSR Hospital. (iii) There is no stipulation or averments in the findings of Medical Board or the Review Medical Board of CISF to determine that the petitioner is suffering from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of the duties. 6. (iii) There is no stipulation or averments in the findings of Medical Board or the Review Medical Board of CISF to determine that the petitioner is suffering from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of the duties. 6. In view of contrary Medical Reports and also in view of the fact that earlier Medical Report issued by the Medical Board as well as Review Medical Board of CISF has not given any finding whether physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of the duties, the report dated 19.05.2017 (Annexure-8) and further review thereof dated 22.07.2017 (Annexure-11) are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back with a direction to the respondent no. 1 for constitution of a fresh Review Medical Board in view of Rule 6(20) of General Grounds for Rejection so as to examine the earlier medical report and come to a concrete finding whether there is any congenital abnormality that would impede efficient discharge of training/ duties, within a period of four months from today. Needless to say, if case of the petitioner is found to be fit for consideration, letter of appointment be issued in her favour as she has already cleared written examination and other tests. However, if Review Medical Board finds any congenital abnormality, so as to impede efficient discharge of training/ duties, letter of rejection be issued on the basis of report of the Review Medical Board. After completing all formalities, final order be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with observation and directions as aforesaid.