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

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 interest of justice that NTPC constitutes another Medical Board for re-examination of these three appellants and decide their fate on the basis of the opinion given and take further action on the basis of opinion given by the reconstituted Medical Board. This appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.”

In the decision of the Supreme Court in Veer Pal Singh v Ministry of Defence, it was held,

“Although, the courts are extremely loath to interfere with the opinion of the experts, there is nothing like exclusion of judicial review of the decision taken on the basis of such opinion. What needs to be emphasised is that the opinion of the experts deserves respect and not worship and the courts and other judicial/quasi-judicial forums entrusted with the task of deciding the disputes relating to premature release/discharge from the army cannot, in each and every case, refuse to examine the record of the Medical Board for determining whether or not the conclusion reached by it is legally sustainable.”

Referring to several other judgments, the Court held that directing a fresh medical examination of the Respondent was justified. It was held that the opinion of a private hospital was sought only after the Review Medical Board opined that the matter be referred to a dermatologist. As per the RMB, it was done under Recruitment Guidelines. The Dermatologist had declared the respondent “medically fit for duties” and some therapeutic remedies were suggested. The Court held that under such circumstances, the Respondent must have been granted the due time to undergo therapy before assessing his fitness for recruitment.

Moreover, the Court held that the case was further referred to Dermatologist for opinion by the Review Medical Board and therefore the findings of the Dermatologist could not be ignored.

Making these observations, the Court held that the decision of the Review Medical Board needed to be interfered with. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld, referring the matter to fresh Medical Board for examination.

Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. versus AMAN SINGH

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC with Ms. Shreeya Sud, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Ms. Unni Maya and Mr. Ishan Singh, Advs.

Click Here To Download Order/Judgement