Full Judgment Text
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 14926/2021 & CM 47135/2021
ADHIR KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Amit Kaushik, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Satya Ranjan Swain,
Mr.Kautilya Birat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
decision of the respondent no.1 declaring the petitioner as 'unfit' for
appointment to the post of ‘Sub-Inspector Delhi Police, CAPFs and
the Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination, 2019’ (hereinafter
referred to as the 'SI-CPO Examination Notice, 2019').
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made an
application pursuant to the SI-CPO Examination Notice, 2019. He
qualified the Paper- I and Paper- II in the SI-CPO Examination Notice,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 1 of 8
2019 and was shortlisted for a Detailed Medical Examination (in
short, ‘DME’).
3. His DME was conducted by the respondent no.1, wherein he
was declared medically unfit on account of ' multiple Chronic Lystic
Lesions on Chest and Back' .
4. The petitioner thereafter applied for a Review Medical Board
(in short, ‘RMB’), which also declared the petitioner as medically
unfit for appointment on account of 'Multiple keloid in Central area of
chest and single keloid right scapular area' .
5. Aggrieved of the above declarations, the petitioner has filed the
present petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
declaration of the petitioner as 'unfit' for appointment is not in
accordance with the ‘Uniform Guidelines for Recruitment Medical
Examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles: Revised Guidelines as on
May 2015’ (hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical Guidelines').
Drawing reference to Clause XII of the DME prescribed in the
Medical Guidelines, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
mere presence of keloids is not a disqualification in terms of the
Medical Guidelines; it is only where the tendency of keloid is marked
or interferes with the proper wearing of combatised equipment that the
candidate can be disqualified from appointment. He submits that in
the present case, the RMB did not observe that the keloid formation on
the petitioner has a tendency of interfering with the proper wearing of
combatised equipment and therefore, cannot be used as a ground to
disqualify the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 2 of 8
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner had earlier applied for appointment as a Constable (GD) in
the Central Industrial Security Force and after a detailed examination,
having been found medically fit, was even given an offer of
appointment vide letter dated 18.03.2017. The petitioner, however,
could not join due to some personal reason. The petitioner thereafter
applied for Sub-Inspector in CPOs Examination, 2017, where again he
was declared successful in the medical examination, however, could
not make the merit list. The petitioner was also declared medically fit
in the similar examination in 2018 in spite of the DME first declaring
him unfit on account of ‘ multiple keloids over chest and back’ as in
the present instance. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the
basis of the above, submits that RME in the present recruitment
process has not applied the standard as prescribed in the Medical
Guidelines and therefore, its finding is liable to be set aside by this
Court.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
should be allowed an opportunity of being examined by an
independent board of doctors and based on their opinion, his
application be processed further by the respondents.
9. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.12.2021, Dr.Rajnish
Ranjan, Chief Medical Officer (SG)-Commandant, CRPF, has
appeared before us via video conference. He has explained that
keloids have a tendency to show in other body parts and cause pain,
itching or tenderness. He submits that the multiple keloids suffered by
the petitioner will cause itching and pain during training/OPS,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 3 of 8
especially in hot, humid and sweaty conditions and especially with the
petitioner putting uniform and bulletproof jacket for a long time. He
has filed before us his opinion and also the opinion of Dr.Sanjoy
Ranjan, Medical Officer (OG), CRPF, who was also a part of the
RME. The said opinions are reproduced hereinunder:
Dr. Rajnish Ranjan :
"IT IS SUBMITTED that, Individual was
declared unfit in initial medical examination
for multiple chronic cystic lesions on chest in
central area and back of chest.
He further appeared before review medical
board for review. RME medical board took
specialist (Skin) opinion and found unfit him
for recruitment in CRPF.
Due to--
Multiple keloid in central area of chest
and single keloid on Rt. Scapular area as per
instruction/Guideline for recruitment medical
examination in CAPF & AR (Revised
Guidelines as on May-2015) issued by GOI,
MHA (Police division -II) as mentioned in
Page no.33, Para 9 under examination for skin
disease and leprosy. It is said that keloid
formation, if tendency is marked or interferes
with proper wearing of combatised equipment
disqualifying
is .
Regarding keloid it is also submitted
that keloid have tendency to show in other
body parts if person have develop keloid
specially those have multiple keloid it called
keloid tendency.
Keloid causes pain, itch or tenderness.
Person having multiple keloid have keloid
tendency also. Multiple keloids will cause
itching and pain during training/OPS
duty/specially hot and humid and sweat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 4 of 8
condition specially with putting uniform and
bullet proof jacket by friction for long time.
In view of above multiple keloids lesion
is cause of unfitness in CAPF being uniformed
force and having special nature of duties."
Dr. Sanjoy Ranjan:
"It is submitted that, Individual was declared
unfit in initial medical examination for
multiple chronic cystic lesions on chest in
central area and back of chest.
He further appeared before review medical
board for review. RME medical board took
specialist (Skin) opinion and found unfit him
for recruitment in CRPF.
Due to--
Multiple keloid in central area of chest
and single keloid on Rt. Scapular area as per
instruction/Guideline for recruitment medical
examination in CAPF & AR (Revised
Guidelines as on May-2015) issued by GOI,
MHA (Police division -II) as mentioned in
Page no.33, Para 9 under examination for skin
disease and leprosy. It is said that keloid
formation, if tendency is marked or interferes
with proper wearing of combatised equipment
is disqualifying .
Regarding keloid it is also submitted
that keloid have tendency to show in other
body parts if person have develop keloid
specially those have multiple keloid it called
keloid tendency.
Keloid causes pain, itch or tenderness.
Person having multiple keloid have keloid
tendency also. Multiple keloids will cause
itching and pain during training/OPS
duty/specially hot and humid and sweat
condition specially with putting uniform and
bullet proof jacket by friction for long time.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 5 of 8
In view of above multiple keloids lesion
is cause of unfitness in CAPF being uniformed
force and having special nature of duties."
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, reiterates that
the opinion given by Dr. Rajnish Ranjan and/or Dr. Sanjoy Ranjan
does not deal with the fact that in the earlier medical examinations for
similar recruitment process, the petitioner was found to be medically
fit for appointment. He further submits that these doctors being part
of the RMB, would be interested in getting their opinion upheld by
this Court and therefore, the petitioner must be afforded a fair
opportunity by directing his medical examination by an independent
set of doctors.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
12. The finding of the RMB Board finding the petitioner to be
suffering from 'Multiple keloid in Central area of chest and single
keloid right scapular area' has not been disputed before us by the
petitioner.
13. The primary contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Para
9 of the Medical Guidelines, the mere presence of keloids could not
have resulted in the petitioner's disqualification; the finding should
also have been whether the same would cause interference with the
proper wearing of combatised equipment, which is absent in the report
of the RMB. We, however, do not find merit in the same. The medical
opinion given by Dr. Rajnish Ranjan during the course of the oral
hearing today and in his written opinion as also the written opinion of
Dr. Sanjoy Ranjan clearly state that the keloids in the case of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 6 of 8
petitioner can cause itching, which can be dangerous not only for the
petitioner but also for the other officers at the time of any operation.
We have no reason to doubt the above observations of the qualified
doctors. Dr. Ranjan has also placed before us the opinion of the
specialists, whose opinion was sought at the time of the petitioner’s
RMB. Though it is correct that the RMB should have clearly recorded
in its Report that Keloids suffered by the petitioner are likely to
interfere with his wearing combatised uniform, however, in the face of
the opinion now given and explained, this would be an omission
which cannot invalidate the RMB proceedings or caste a doubt
thereon. It must be remembered that the doctors conducting RMB are
not men of law who would appreciate the significance of the
exactitude of language to be used in giving their opinion.
14. As far as the plea of the petitioner that he was declared
medically fit in the earlier recruitment process, we again do not find
the same sufficient to ignore the RMB report in the present instance,
especially where the basic fact of the petitioner suffering from
multiple keloids is not denied before us. Under what circumstances
was the petitioner declared medically fit in the earlier recruitment
process cannot be judged by us in the present petition. It is important
to note that no mala fide is alleged against the doctors constituting the
RMB. These doctors are the best judge of medical fitness or unfitness
of a candidate. The Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with such findings of the
RMB in the absence of any allegation of mala fide or arbitrariness by
the doctors.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 7 of 8
15. It is also important to note that the recruitment process is for
Armed Forces. The selected candidates would have to perform their
duty in most harsh and unfriendly environment. For such recruitment,
the candidate should therefore, meet higher standard of medical
fitness. Benefit of doubt on medical fitness cannot be given to the
candidate. In fact, once there is a doubt, it must be resolved against
the candidate.
16. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition
and the same is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 11, 2022
RN/AB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
Signing Date:18.01.2022
WP(C) No.14926/2021 Page 8 of 8