Dismissed

Mohan Chauhan v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Dec 2021WP(C)/2550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection for CISF appointment due to defective distant vision in Review Medical Report. Court held Submit Board opinion of three Ophthalmologists was final as per MHA guidelines, distinguishing prior precedents on civilian medical opinions. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no direction for medical re-examination; parties to bear own cost.

Mohan Chauhan Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC010079242019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2550/2019

¶5

MOHAN CHAUHAN

¶6

S/O. MR. MARCHHOO CHAUHAN, VILL. WATIZOR, P.O. WATIZOR, P.S. KHERONI, DIST. WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM-782448.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, INDIA.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶11

BLOCK NO.13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 INDIA.

¶12

3:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (SG)

¶13

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE RTC BHILAI MADHYA PRADESH.

¶14

4:ASSAM MEDICAL COUNCIL

¶15

GUWAHATI C/O. DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES HENGERABARI GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/10

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶20

Date : 10-12-2021

¶21

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

¶22

CAV

¶23

Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

¶24

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned review Medical Examination Report dated 10.08.2018, thereby declaring the petitioner to be unfit and to direct the State Medical Board consisting of eye specialists to conduct a medical examination of the petitioner and for a further direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable/ General Duty in the Central Industrial Security Force.

¶25

An advertisement dated 24.01.2015 was issued by the Staff Selection Commission for “Constables (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2015 for recruitment to the post of Constables (General Duty) in CAPFs i.e. BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the

¶26

Page No.# 3/10

¶27

petitioner had participated in the selection process and upon qualifying in the written as well as Physical Efficiency Test (PET for short), vide letter dated 27.04.2018, issued by the CISF Unit Nazira, the petitioner was offered appointment in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF in short) on probation for 2 year. On 15.06.2018, the petitioner was made to undergo CAPF Constable (GD) Medical Examination, 2015 and he was declared unfit due to the reason of substandard distant vision (Lt⁶ /12). The petitioner was informed that if he prefers to file an appeal against the finding of medical examination, he was advised to apply for review medical examination in prescribed form after obtaining medical certificate from Specialist Medical Officer of Government District Hospital. Accordingly, the petitioner was medically examined by the SubDivisional Medical & Health Officer, Civil Hospital, Diphu and the doctor had opined to the effect that there was judgmental error in physical examination at the time of examination. The doctor had given report that visual acuity in right

¶28

eye was⁶ /6 and in left eye it was⁶ /6 (P). The authorities had directed the petitioner to report to Composite Hospital, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi on 10.08.2018 to appear before Medical Board for Review Medical Examination. However, the finding dated 10.08.2018 by the Review Medical Examination conducted by 3 (three) doctor’s board was unfavourable to the petitioner as he was ”declared unfit due to defective distant vision both eyes”.

¶29

Thereafter, against the review medical board, by letter dated 13.09.2018 the petitioner had submitted an appeal before the Commandant, CISF, Nazira for re-examination. The petitioner had also got himself examined at a private eye hospital at Varanasi and the doctor had given eye check-up report

¶30

Page No.# 4/10

¶31

dated 18.09.2018 to the effect vision of the petitioner in right eye and left eye was⁶ /6 without glasses. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 7416/2018 and this Court by order dated 19.12.2018, by recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the authorities had informed the petitioner that his case for re-examination was pending at the FHQ, New Delhi for administrative decision, which decision was awaited, as intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 09.11.2018 and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to take a decision in connection with the request of the petitioner for holding medical re-examination with further direction that the entire exercise be undertaken by the authorities within a period of 2 (two) months. The Chief Medical Officer (SG), CISF, RTC, Bhilai in the Office of the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bhilai, vide order dated 15.02.2019 by referring to MHA guidelines dated 09.09.2017, held that since the petitioner has availed the opportunity of being re-examined again by Review Medical Board hence, his request for re-examination again by another Board cannot be acceded to, as such the appeal dated 13.09.2018 was considered and rejected being devoid of merit. The petitioner once again got his eye checked up at Sri Sankaradeva

¶32

Nethralaya, Guwahati on 14.03.2019 and it was found that (i) Vd -⁶ /6 (both

¶33

eyes) (i.e. the distant vision in both eyes was⁶ /6) (ii) VN – N6 (both eyes) (i.e. the near vision in both eyes was⁶ /6) and (iii) Colour VN – WNL (both eyes) (i.e. colour vision in both eyes was within normal limit). Accordingly, aggrieved by the review medical examination and resultant rejection of the offer for his appointment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶34

Page No.# 5/10

¶35

Constitution of India.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the recruitment drive, the Medical Board had not found any eye-sight defect and similarly, the civil doctors have repeatedly not found any vision defect in the eyes of the petitioners and therefore, the medical examination by the respondent authorities was a farce and the authorities were pre-determined to refuse employment to the petitioner for reasons best known to them. By referring to medical certificate dated 14.03.2019, issued by the Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati, it is contended that the contents thereof is as follows – “This is to certify that Mr. Mohan Chouhan (SSN MRD No. 703878), 28 years old male from West Karbi Anglong, reported to our institute on 14/03/2019. On examination, Patient distance visual acuity without glasses is 6/6 in both eyes and near vision acuity is N6 both eyes by Snellen’s Chart at working distance of 30 cm. Colour vision test (Ishihara) is within normal limits.” It is submitted that as per the medical certificate annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, the Medical Officer CL-II, Civil Hospital, Nashik by certificate dated 10.12.2020, opined that there was error of judgment in Review Medical Examination and that the visual acuity in both eyes was 6/6 and 6/6 and that the petitioner was medically fit for the post of Constable/GD in CRPF/CAPFs. Accordingly, it is submitted that this was a fit and proper case for directing a reexamination of the eyes of the petitioner before an appropriate medical board consisting of eye specialists. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) WP(C) 4161/2016 (name of parties and date of decision is not available in the printout), (ii) Bhupinder Kumar V. Union of India, (2010) 1 GLR 5, (iii) Baikuntha

¶37

Page No.# 6/10

¶38

Rajbongshi V. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 4 GLR 424, and (iv) Anowar Hussain V. The Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 1683/2006, decided by this Court on 25.07.2013.

¶39

Per contra, the learned CGC has submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Police Division-II had issued Guidelines for recruitment medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, as revised on May, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “2015 Guidelines”), which prescribes the procedure of conducting tests, equipment and nature of test and also the standard. It is submitted that the parameters for testing eye sight for recruitment to CAPFs the prescribed methodology is required to be followed, which may not be followed by doctors while checking the eye sight of a civilian. It is also submitted that as per directives dated 06.06.2018 issued by the Directorate General of CISF, the opinion of recruitment medical board remains valid for a period of one year from the date of fitness to joining the service and as such it is submitted that the petitioner had to be medically examined after issuance of offer letter, which also contains the said condition. Referring to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it is submitted that decision was taken at the level of DIG/Medical FHQr, New Delhi to have review medical examination done before the Medical Board at Composite Hospital, CISF, Jharodakalan, as such, there was biasness or pre-determined effort to deny employment to the petitioner as review medical test for all candidates for the post of Constable (GD) who were having eye-sight defect was done there and that the petitioner was not selectively examined there. It is also submitted that as a matter of policy and as prescribed by the guidelines in force, the decision of the Review Medical Board was final.

¶40

Page No.# 7/10

¶41

It is submitted that the petitioner was found medically unfit due to defective distant vision of both eyes because the petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed criteria as per guidelines in force. It is submitted that the petitioner was found unfit due to “sub-standard distant vision (Lt.6/12) whereas the standard distant vision for a right handed person is “RT 6/6 LT 6/9” and that for a left handed person, it is “RT 6/9” and “LT 6/6”, which was the basic criteria to be fulfilled by a candidate willing to join CAPFs in General Duty category. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

¶42

Perused the pleadings made in writ petition, affidavit-inopposition and affidavit-in-reply and also perused the documents appended thereto. It is seen that in the medical certificate dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure-F to the writ petition), which was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer, Civil Hospital Diphu, it has been mentioned categorically that the VA – Rt⁶ /6 and Lt-⁶ /6 (P) [which means visual acuity in right eye was⁶ /6 and in

¶43

left eye it was⁶ /6 (P)]. In this regard, it would be relevant to quote paragraph 8 of Annexure-II of the 2015 Guidelines relating to Ophthalmic Systemic Examination, which reads as follows:-

¶44

“ Method of Recording when Lines are Read Partially : If a person reads 5 letters out of 7 correctly, say in 6/6 line, his vision will be recorded as 6/6. In case he reads less than 5 letters, the vision should be recorded as if he has read the larger letters in the line above. Where the individual has read only 4 letters and cannot see the 5^th letter distinctly, he should be given the benefit of trial of another chart, where he may be able to read 5 letters. Recording of vision as –

¶45

Page No.# 8/10

¶46

Partial (P) is not permitted. The recording then should be the reset when full reading is correct, say 6/9.”

¶47

Thus, it is seen that the medical certificate based on which the petitioner had applied for review medical, discloses defective vision acuity as the

¶48

distant vision acuity in the left eye was⁶ /6 (P). As indicated in the herein before quoted guidelines, the word “(P)” denotes “partial”, which is prohibited in CAPF guidelines. Therefore, when the (i) medical examination dated 15.06.2018, (ii) medical examination of eyes dated 21.06.2018 as done by the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer, Civil Hospital Diphu, and (iii) review medical examination conducted on 10.08.2018, all discloses defective visual acuity, the Court finds no reason for ordering further re-examination of the eye-sight of the petitioner.

¶49

Although the petitioner has not disputed that the Medical Board of three doctors, who had conducted Review Medical Examination were Ophthalmologists, but the learned CGC has informed that all the three doctors conducting the Review Medical Examination were Eye Specialists/ Ophthalmologists. Hence, when three eye specialist doctors who are conversant with 2015 Guidelines relating to CAPFs have conducted Review Medical Test of the eyes of the petitioner and have found him “unfit due to defective distant vision in both eyes, the Court finds no good reason to discard joint opinion by three eye specialists merely because other eye-specialists on civilian side had given a different opinion to the effect that there was no defect in visual acuity in respect of the petitioner. Moreover, when the CAPFs are the recruiting authority,

¶50

Page No.# 9/10

¶51

they would be the best judge to decide which level of fitness is required by Constable (General Duty). The opinion of a civil doctor would definitely not be binding on the CAPFs including CISF, and rather, they would be bound by the Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which in the present case is the 2015 Guidelines.

¶52

As indicated herein before, it is reiterated at the cost of repetition that medical examination report of petitioner’s eyes, as conducted on 21.06.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer, Civil Hospital Diphu (Annexure-F of the writ petition), discloses defective visual acuity with the distant vision acuity in the left eye being “⁶ /6 (P)” and that “(P)” denotes

¶53

“partial”, which as quoted herein before, is prohibited in CAPFs 2015 Guidelines. Therefore, in the presence of divergent medical opinion by civilian doctors out of which one goes against the petitioner, no case has been made out to discard the Medical Examination Report dated 15.06.2018 and Review Medical

¶54

Examination Report conducted on 10.08.2018. On this unique fact situation, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the 4 (four) cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be distinguishable on facts, for which there is no necessity of burdening the order with discussion thereon. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the same or for ordering a Medical Re-examination of the petitioner.

¶55

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

¶56

Page No.# 10/10

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Comparing Assistant

Mohan Chauhan v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Chauhan v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipankar Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jayanta Barman and 23 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

MD Abdur Razzaque Vs Padmeswar Borah and 5 Ors.

Lukumoni Dhadumia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Bingwsri Ramchiary Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Hafizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.