Allowed

Akshata Mohan Phadake v. Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024WP/6344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging medical disqualification for a Constable post in Central Armed Police Forces, the High Court held that the Detailed and Review Medical Examinations were conducted too soon after septoplasty surgery, violating recruitment guidelines. The Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the review report and directing a fresh examination pending a certificate.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Review Medical Examination Report dated 25.07.2023 and direction to conduct a fresh Review Medical Examination within three months.

Akshata Mohan Phadake Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6344 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AKSHATA MOHAN PHADAKE D/O MOHAN PHADAKE AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A 949, GUNJENATTI CROSS KADOLI, BELGAUM KARNATAKA-591143.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY MISS. AYUSSHI AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHIVANI SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

UNION OF INDIA

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, BLOCK NO.12 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.

¶14

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 AND ALSO AT 1^ST FLOOR E WING, KENDRIYA SADAN SANTHOSA PURAM

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶17

KORAMANGALA 2^ND BLOCK KORAMANGALA

¶18

BENGALURU-560034.

¶19

DIRECTORATE GENERAL CRPF(RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07, SECTOR-01 R K PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SADHANA S DESAI., CGC FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT DATED 24/07/2023 (ANNEXURE-A), IMPUGNED REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT DATED 25/07/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) DECLARING THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS MEDICALLY UNFIT FOR THE POST OF CONSTABLE (GD) IN GENERAL ARMED POLICE FORCES (CAPFS) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED MARKS CARD (ANNEXURE-C) WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN HAS BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING APPOINTED AS CONSTABLE (GD) IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES (CAPFS).b) DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO RECONDUCT THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OR THE REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION. c) DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO DECLARE THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS MEDICALLY FIT AND QUALIFY HER FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF CONSTABLE (GD) IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES (CAPFS).

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is successful in the selection examination processed by the third respondent for appointment of Constables [GD] with the Central Armed Police Forces, and the petitioner, before she is called for Detailed Medical Examination [DME], has undergone septoplasty surgery for deviated nasal septum , and in DME, as also the Review Medical Examination [RME], she is found to be medically unfit.

¶28

Smt. Ayusshi Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles [which is revised as of May 2015 and hereafter referred to as ‘ the Guidelines’ ], submits that in terms of the Rule 11[4] of the Guidelines, the petitioner would be

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶31

entitled for DME after lapse of thirty days and for a further review in accordance with the terms of the Guidelines and the petitioner could not have been rejected as medically unfit in the DME and RME completed within thirty days. The learned counsel emphasizes that the surgical procedure undergone by the petitioner is not for any serious condition but only intended as a correction procedure.

¶32

Smt. Sadhana S Desai, the learned

¶33

Central Government Counsel for the first to third respondents, submits that the petitioner cannot succeed on either of the two grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner, especially because it can be demonstrated that the petitioner could not have been participated in the selection process because of her age. However, the merits of the petitioner's grievance and the merits of the contention on behalf of the respondents must necessarily be examined in the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶36

light of the indisputable facts and the provisions of the Guidelines for RME.

¶37

It will be indisputable that the petitioner ought to have been subjected to DME only after thirty days from the date of surgery, but she is subjected to such examination within twenty-one days and the RME is also concluded on the very next day. The Guidelines read that a conclusive rejection of the candidature on clinical findings could differ from one Doctor to another usually leading to embarrassing situations with Courts relying upon Specialist's opinion, and therefore, an opportunity is provided for a candidate to provide a Certificate as aforesaid.

¶38

As such, the Guidelines stipulate that there must be a review if a Certificate by a Medical Officer is produced to the effect that the candidate does not suffer from any disability and such opinion is rendered in the light of the reasons for which a candidate is found to be medically unfit. This Court,

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶41

in the circumstances where both DME and RME are concluded within a span of two days within thirty days contrary to the stipulation in the Guidelines, is of the considered view that the petitioner must be extended an opportunity to file a Certificate as is contemplated with the third respondent for a RME and appropriate decision is taken thereafter.

¶42

It would be needless to observe that in considering the petitioner's grievance with the DME and the RME, this Court has not considered the respondents' case that the petitioner could not have participated in the selection process in view of her age and that must be considered independently and by a reasoned order to ensure that there is no needless litigation on that score. Hence the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[a] The petition is allowed in part quashing the Review Medical Examination Report

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:24307 WP No. 6344 of 2024

¶47

dated 25.07.2023 [Annexure-B] and directing a fresh Review Medical Examination.

¶48

[b] The petitioner, to be entitled to Review Medical Examination as now enabled, shall with the third respondent, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, file a detailed representation enclosing a Certificate as aforementioned for due consideration.

¶49

[c] If the petitioner files such representation along with the certified copy of this order and the Certificate, the third respondent shall ensure Review Medical Examination is conducted and a decision taken within an outer limit of three [3] months.

¶50

AN/-

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

Akshata Mohan Phadake v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshata Mohan Phadake v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Basappa M Bhovi Vs the Registrar

Sanjay C.A. Vs the Commissioner of Public Instructions

K N Ramappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Chandrashekar Y K Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Smt Lalitha T Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Saritha Vs the State of Karnataka