Mandatory For Candidates To Clear Medical Test In Central Armed Forces: In Gauhati High Court

Following the SSB results, recommended candidates come before the medical board to complete their medical board. The medical board takes 4 to 5 days to finish in the concerned Military Hospital, after which the applicants are dispersed. To continue, applicants must pass the Test. The High Court Of Gauhati upheld this through a Learned Single Bench MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA in ANIL YADAV V. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS (WP(C)/4821/2020).

Facts of the case – The petitioner had applied for the “Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA and SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018” as advertised in Employment News, July 21-27, 2018. The petitioner passed the written Test and was then called for a medical examination, which resulted in the petitioner being ruled unfit, according to the Medical Test Report dated 23.01.2020. The petitioner used the certificate to file an appeal against medical unfitness, and the Review Medical Examination (RME) was held on October 8, 2020. However, while the petitioner’s Color Vision and Ear were judged to be in his favor in the RME, the petitioner was again deemed unsuitable due to “Knock knee” due to a determination of “Gross knock knee IMD more than 5 cm.”

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, following the RME, the petitioner had himself evaluated by Dey’s Nursing Home, Hojai, and the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, and his “knock knee” was determined to be within normal ranges. As a result, it is argued that the petitioner was not only discriminated against by the respondent authorities but that his case was also not adequately assessed. The RME was done haphazardly to reject the petitioner’s candidacy. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases to support his arguments – “Baikuntha Rajbongshi v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 4 GLR 424: 2018 Legal Eagle (Gau) 243, and (ii) Devinder v. Border Security Force & Anr., W.P.(C) 8130/2011 decided on 18.11.2011.

The learned CGC, on the other hand, has claimed that the Medical Fitness Test and Review Medical Examination are based on the “Guidelines for recruitment medical examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles.” It was last revised in May 2015 and lays out the procedure for examining for “knock-knee” deformity. It is asserted that the original record of the Estt. Recruitment Branch contains, among other things, a photograph of the petitioner taken on 08.10.2020 at the time of his RME, which reveals that the petitioner had “knock knee,” as the distance between the two ankles was more than the scale of 5 cms. As a result, it is argued that because the petitioner’s “knock knee” deformity was more significant than five cms., the authorities did not make any error in declaring him medically unfit due to “knock-knee.”

The learned Government Advocate contends that he is only a nominal party to this writ petition, that he has nothing to say, and that his attendance is solely to protect the State’s interests.

The Learned Judge relies on a medical textbook, “The Measurement and Analysis of Axial Deformity at the Knee,” written by Kenneth A. Krackow. The tibiofemoral bone diagrams are included in the book, and it is indicated that “if normal is presumed to be 6o valgus, the deformity is 14o valgus,” according to the book. As a result, the RME appears to be consistent with the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital’s X-Ray Report and Medical Certificate. The learned CGC stands for respondent nos. 1 to 4 presented a print-out of the petitioner’s image in the record, conveying a prima facie visual impression that the internal malleolar distance is more than the 05 cm scale. The Learned Judge relies on the case of Devinder (supra). In that instance, the Delhi High Court ordered a second medical examination without any empirical data, which is not the situation here. In the present case, GMCH’s X-Ray Report and Medical Certificate dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure-K) provide the necessary empirical facts on the occurrence of the “Right tibiofemoral angle-6.5 degree; Left tibiofemoral angle- 6.12 degree.” As a result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *