Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondents.
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 21st January, 2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed.
The writ petition was filed to challenge the report of the Medical Board so as the Review Medical Board holding petitioner-appellant to be unfit for the appointment on the post of Constable in the disciplined forces. The petitioner-appellant was found unfit on account of varicose vein (operated). He preferred an appeal before the Review Medical Board with the document to show that he did not underwent varicose vein operation/surgery. The Review Medical Board did not accept the aforesaid, rather declared petitioner-appellant to be unfit on account of varicose vein with a finding that even if operated, defect remains unchanged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that when the candidate did not underwent a surgery then opinion of the Medical Board so as the Review Medical Board is contrary to record. It had not taken note of the document produced by him which shows not the surgery but Sclerotherapy. The aforesaid therapy does not require a surgery but treatment to solitary vein behind the knee thus, appellant could not have been declared medically unfit.
To show that Sclerotherapy is not a surgery, a reference of Medical News Today has been given. It shows to be a treatment where doctor injects medicine into the blood vessels or lymph vessels that causes them to shrink which is commonly used to treat varicose vein or so called spider veins.
The document produced by the petitioner-appellant no doubt shows treatment to be non-surgical but definitely refers to a treatment for varicose vein. Thus, it is not correct to say that petitioner-appellant is not suffering from varicose vein rather from the document produced by him self proves treatment taken by him for varicose vein. As per the medical expert report, varicose vein cannot be treated even by surgery and therefore, petitioner-appellant was declared unfit. The expert medical opinion cannot be subject of judicial review.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant however made a reference of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Meena Vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (C) No. 6913 of 2011, decided on 7th February, 2012. In paras 15 to 19 of the judgment, the issue was considered with a finding that slight degree of varicosity as a trifling defect would not dis-entitle a candidate to get the appointment. The Delhi High Court has however found that slight degree of varicosity has not been defined in the guidelines. This Court does not possess the expertise to define slight degree of varicosity. There is otherwise nothing on the record to show that petitioner-appellant suffers from slight degree of varicosity thus should not have been declared unfit.
The treatment given to the petitioner-appellant is coming out from the document though not produced by the petitioner-appellant along with the writ petition or the appeal but perused by the Court pursuant to the record brought by the respondents. The petitioner-appellant was treated in Apollo Hospital at New Delhi and underwent Sclerotherapy and accordingly, it is an admitted case that he had to underwent a treatment where medicine is injected in the blood vessels to shrink. It is commonly used to treat varicose veins.
We could not find any material to show it to be a slight degree of varicosity. Accordingly, no reason exist for us to cause interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge when we find no error therein. It would be necessary to add that petitioner-appellant had come out with the case of dog bite which is not proved by any document and therefore, the story taken by the petitioner-appellant is rightly not accepted by the learned Single Judge.
In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.