Petitioner challenged his rejection for a CRPF constable post, claiming the Review Medical Board failed to follow guidelines regarding specialist opinions. Court dismissed the petition due to significant delay and on merits, rejecting claims that specialist opinion was necessary absent controversy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2911 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ABHIJITH G.S AGED 23 YEARS S/O.GIREESH BABU, KUZHIVILLA VEEDU, VELLALLOOR P.O., KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695601.
BY ADVS. VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA KUM. K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110003.
2 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BLOCK NO.12, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
3 CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, BLOCK NO.1, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
4 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695316. 5 REVIEW MEDICAL BOARD, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE GROUP CENTRE, PALLIPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695316.
BY ADV SMT.T.P.SINDHUMOL
OTHER PRESENT:
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
2
CGC TONY GEORGE THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT ON 19/11/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
3
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner is an applicant to the post of Constables(G.D.) in Central Armed Police Forces, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 21/7/2018 issued by the second respondent. After the successful submission of the application, the writ petitioner was called for Physical Standard Test(PST) and thereafter for the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) on 23/8/2019. Thereafter, he was called for the next stage of Detailed Medical Examination(DME) on 21/1/2020. After the examination, he was issued with Ext.P3 memorandum stating that he was unfit for the reason of “KNOCK KNEE”. Claiming that the examination was not properly conducted and that it was not even presided by a presiding officer, the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P3 along with Ext.P5 medical certificate issued by the Additional Professor of Orthopadics, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 24/1/2020, who had given an opinion that there was no clinical and radiological evidence of knock knee(genus valgum). On the strength of Ext.P5 medical certificate, his appeal was accepted and the petitioner was directed to appear for a Review Medical Examination(RME). Medical examination was held on 10/10/2020 and he was issued with Ext.P7 review medical report. It also reiterated that the petitioner was unfit on account of genus valgum.
4
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
that the petitioner is medically fit for the post covered by Ext.P1 notification. It was also requested that the 3rd respondent may be directed to include the petitioner in the final list prepared for Ext.P1 notification.
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
5
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
6
contentions set up by petitioner on merits also. The learned counsel heavily relied on the guidelines issued for medical examination produced as Ext.P8. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the guidelines for RME provides that Board should examine the candidates specifically for the deficiency for which the candidate has been declared unfit. It was mandated that the defects for which the candidate has been declared unfit has to be examined thoroughly and the findings must be supported by investigation reports, if applicable. It was further contended that, it also mandated that the clinical findings should be co-related with confirmatory tests/investigations/opinion of specialists of the Government Hospitals , etc. It was also provided that, in the case of knock knee, X-Ray plates with findings should be attached. The learned counsel placed reliance on the report of the doctor produced by him as Ext.P5, to contend that in the light of the opinion of the review board which was not in conformity with Ext.P7, there was a controversy and the matter ought to be referred to a detailed examination. To substantiate it, the learned counsel referred to Ext.P8 guidelines, which provided that the review board may get opinion of the concerned specialists or super specialists of the Government Medical College and Hospital, in case of any controversy. It was not done in this case, it was contended.
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
7
of the petitioner was borderline increased, approximately by 5 degree in range of that of mild variant of genu valgus. On measurement in various position, it measured IMD 7 Cms, which is more than 5 Cms. Hence the petitioner was not eligible. It was also contended that the report of the RME was not susceptible to any challenge.
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
8
Board in this regard cannot also be doubted. They have the experience in examining the candidates, having regard to the requirement of the recruitment agencies, and the physical and mental fitness expected from an officer of police and para military forces.
12 The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decision of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in Narinder Singh v. Director General of CRPF and others ((2018) Supreme (J&K) 387 wherein it was held that in review medical examination,the candidate cannot be rejected on clinical findings only. Any decision on rejection ought to be taken with valid clinical findings fully justified and supported by corroboratory investigation reports and if needed opinion of specialists/super specialists of Govt.Hospitals, etc. On the other hand ,the learned CGC specifically referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.10783/2020 wherein, after referring to a series of earlier decisions of that court, held that the court had on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Force and the Police Forces was more stringent than a civilian employment. It was held that, once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work in arduous condition. Accordingly, they have formed an opinion that the candidates does not possess medical fitness for recruitment, opinion of private or other Government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted in as much as the recruited persons are required to work for Forces and not for the private doctors or the Government hospitals and which the medical professionals are unaware of the
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
9
demands of the duties in the Forces. This decision applies to the facts of this case. Having considered this,there is absolutely no ground for interference in Ext.P7 report of the RME. The writ petition is accordingly liable to rejected both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
dpk
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
10
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2911/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 21.07.2018 FOR CONSTABLES (G.D) IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES (CAPFS), NIA AND SSF AND RIFLEMEN (G.D) ASSAM RIFLES (AR) EXAMINATION, 2018. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FOR QUALIFICATION OF PHYSICAL STANDARD TEST (PST) AND THE PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST (PET) ON 23.08.2019. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE COPY OF DETAILED MEDIAL EXAMINATION FORM NO.1 CONSTABLE (G.D) EXAM-2018 DATED 21.01.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A TRUE COPY OF REVISED SCHEME FOR COMMON RECRUITMENT OF CONSTABLES (GD) IN CENTRAL ARMED FORCES (CAPFS) AND ASSAM RIFLES, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA) AND SECRETARIAT SECURITY FORCE (SSF) TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH A COMPUTE BASED EXAMINATION DATED 20.05.2015. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE COPY OF MEDIAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR OF ORTHOPEDICS, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24.01.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE COPY OF E ADMIT CARD FOR REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | A TRUE COPY OF REVIEW MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT DATED 10.10.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | THE RELEVANT PAGES GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION IN CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES AND ASSAM RIFLES. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN NARINDER SINGH V.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CRPF AND OTHERS BY THE HONOURABLE JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT. |
| RESPONDENT EXHIBITS | |
| Exhibit R1 | TRUE COPY OF GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT |
W.P.(C) No.2911/2021
11
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CAPF.
Exhibit R2 TRUE COPY OF DOSSIER OF THE PETITIONER.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Review Medical Examination report on knock knee is maintainable despite a long delay?
Whether the Medical Board's rejection of the petitioner without referring the matter to specialists under the guidelines was legally sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No.2902/2021Referred¶33
Narinder Singh v. Director General of CRPF and othersDistinguished¶51
Narinder Singh v. Director General of CRPF and others ((2018) Supreme (J&K) 387)
ABHIJITH G.S
UNION OF INDIA
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
