Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10147 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laloo Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Laloo Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned ASGI for the Union.
3. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the petitioner's candidature for the post of Constable (G.D.) for which exam was conducted in 2018, whereby specialist medical officer or Government District Hospital has certified that petitioner is fit for recruitment and does not suffer from any of the medical conditions pointed out by the medical board.
4. Petitioner's submission is that as per the requirement of the scheme, petitioner had applied for recruitment when he was issued a E-Admission Certificate by the Staff Selection Commission Central Region for Recruitment to the post of Constable (G.D.) in Central Armed Police Forces (C.A.P.Fs.), N.I.A. and S.S.F. and Rifleman, G.D. in Assam Rifles Examination-2018. Petitioner who belongs to O.B.C. category after passing of said examination was issued a E-Admit Card for P.S.T./P.E.T. i.e. Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test. In terms of this E-Admit Card, petitioner appeared for P.S.T./P.E.T. on 31.08.2019 at S.S.B. West Champaran, where he was declared to be qualified and was issued E-Admit Card for detailed medical examination (D.M.E.) which was to be conducted on 03.02.2020.
5. It is submitted that in this detailed medical examination, petitioner has been declared to be unfit on the ground that he had not put his left thumb in one Form No.3, Annexure-K due to presence of hemorrhoids, whereas two other discrepancies pointed out namely distant vision and conditions of teeth not healthy have been met by him and his thumb impression is available on the concerned form No.3, Annexure-K which was dealt by the concerned dentist and the ophthalmologist. It is submitted that, thus, for the fault of hospital in not obtaining petitioner's thumb impression on one of the forms, he has been disqualified which is arbitrary and illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non- availability of stamping pad, petitioner could not affix his thum- impression on Form-K.
7. This act of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as, not putting a thumb impression, petitioner could not have been disqualified and an opportunity should have been afforded to him to contact concerned medical officer to verify his thumb impression as has been verified by the concerned medical officers in relation to two other Form-3, Annexure-K. It is submitted that once, photograph has been attested, then it cannot be said that it was not the petitioner who had undergone medical examination and an opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner.
8. However, the fact of the matter is that and as has been submitted by Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned ASGI for the Union that petitioner was afforded an opportunity. There are specific instructions in regard to filling up of Form-3 and it provides that photograph, thumb impression and candidate's signature on the fitness certificate shall be attested by concerned medical practioner as can be seen from Annexure-(I) and (II) available in the counter-affidavit on page-17 vide which, memorandum of unfit was issued to the petitioner on 04.02.2020. Therefore, once memorandum of unfit was issued to the petitioner, then it was his responsibility to get himself examined from the specialist medical officer and should have furnished report of the specialist medical officer duly attesting his photographs, signatures and thumb impression but as petitioner has failed to observe the necessary requirements and it is mentioned in Form-K itself that unattested form shall be summarily rejected, then petitioner has nobody to blame but for himself. Even otherwise the scope of interference in such matters is very limited as has been held in case of State Bank of India Vs. G.K. Deshak; AIR 1993 SC 2447, wherein, it is held that in writ jurisdiction question of medical fitness cannot be decided in favour of the applicant in spite of contrary opinion given by the doctor.
9. Similarly, in case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another Vs. Smt. Shashi Gupta; AIR 1994 SC 1241, it is held that altering appointment over-writing medical opinion of medical unfitness is beyond the jurisdiction of a court. It is held that medical fitness of candidate is a condition precedent to offering employment to him.
10. In the present case, once petitioner has failed to produce competent medical fitness, then no indulgence can be shown by the Court in the matter and, therefore in terms of the stipulations mentioned in Form-K itself, petition is bound to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 Ashutosh