Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Archit Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the respondents.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition consequent to the rejection of her candidature for appointment as Constable in the Assam Rifles Examination 2018.
On 18 January 2021, a learned Judge of the Court had framed the issues which arise in the following terms:-
"Sri Archit Mehrotra learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
The challenge to the findings of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board in declaring the petitioner unfit on account of Tachycardia (irregular heartbeat) is based on Clause 3 (e) of the guidelines for review medical examination applicable in the present recruitment examination. The copy of the guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi for recruitment medical examination for recruitment of GOs and NGOs in the CAPFs & AR is appended as Annexure No.16 to the writ petition.
The dispute in the present case pertains to a recruitment examination conducted on the post of Constable in CAPF, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles examination' 2018. Relevant Clause 3(e) of the guidelines read as under:-
"3(e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should be admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient nature due to excitement etc, or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-ray and electro-cardiographic examination of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. creatinine etc. tests should also be carried out."
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid procedure has not been followed in the review medical examination conducted on 16.10.2020. Moreover, the medical officers of the Cardiology Department of King George Medical College, Lucknow pointed out that the petitioner does not suffer from any organic disease. The submission, thus, is that the Tachycardia i.e. rise in blood pressure resulting in rise in heartbeat was transient in nature.
The matter requires consideration.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 prays for and is granted ten days time to seek written instruction and place the relevant material before the Court to substantiate that the procedure as laid down above has been followed in the review medical examination held on 16.10.2020.
As prayed, put up this matter as fresh on 29.01.2021 showing the name of Sri Archit Mehrotra as counsel for the respondents."
The respondents have filed a supplementary affidavit placing on the record relevant materials to establish that the rules as prescribed for review medical examination were scrupulously adhered to. Insofar as the issue with respect to Clause 3(e) of the Guidelines is concerned, the attention of the Court is drawn to the fact that the petitioner was examined for two days i.e. 16 and 17 October 2020 and yet the symptoms of Tachycardia were found to be present. In that view of the matter and bearing in mind the decision of the Division Bench rendered in State of U.P. & 2 Others Vs. Rahul, 2016(3) ADJ 327, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the action of the respondents.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Rakesh