No mala fide can be attributable to the doctors constituting the Medical Boards, the opinion formed by them to be preferred to the opinion of private or government doctors: Delhi High Court
The petitioner having accepted the eligibility criteria condition and participated in the selection process cannot now cry “foul” only because he has failed to meet the prescribed medical standards. This was said in the case of Si Gd Pradeep V Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 292/2021] by Mr. Justice Manmohan and Ms. Justice Asha Menon in the High Court Of Delhi.
The facts of the case date back to 10.12.2020 when the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Review Medical Board after going through the Colour Doppler Test. He claims that he was never communicated either verbally or in writing as to the outcome of the said test, but he was orally informed that he was found medically unfit on the ground of “Varicose Veins Right Lower Limb”. On 12th December 2020 got himself examined by way of Colour Doppler Right Lower Limb at Rajasthani Diagnostic and MRI Centre and was found to be normal by the Specialist Government Medical Officer of the Government Hospital. The medical report from RMB acts as a hindrance to his post of AC/GD. Hence, the present writ petition.
The petitioner contended that great wrong had been perpetrated on the petitioner as the respondents had applied standards that were meant for ‘entry-level direct recruitment candidates’ to the while the petitioner admittedly had been in service since 2012 and was in SHAPE-1 and had applied to the post of AC/GD only for promotion and had to be assessed medically on standards prescribed for promotees. Secondly, they contended that this court in several cases, where the candidates had been declared medically unfit on the plea of “Varicose Veins”, had directed the respondents to conduct a medical examination by an independent Board constituted by the Commandant, Army Hospital (R&R) and that a similar relief be also extended to the petitioner and he be directed to be examined at the R&R Hospital.
The Court opined that “The very fact that the petitioner has endorsed the report of the RMB to the effect that he had undertaken surgery for “Varicose Veins” confirms the fact that he was suffering from that medical condition. The conclusions drawn by the first Medical Board and the RMB, therefore, are not incorrect or based on erroneous assessment”.
Reliance was placed by the court on another decision of this court, Sunil Kumar Singh v Union of India [MANU/DE/0428/2017] to conclude that for eligibility, LDCE has to be treated at par with direct recruitment and not with promotion. In the present case, “the advertisement notified that the candidates who qualified the written examination, PST/PET and appear in the interview process were to be shortlisted for undergoing medical examination which was to be conducted as per the “Revised Medical Guidelines 2015”. These conditions were never challenged by the petitioner. On the contrary, he willingly accepted all these conditions including that he would be assessed for medical fitness on standards prescribed for recruitment of GOs and NGOs and applied for and participated in the selection process. Hence the appeal was dismissed.