Allowed

Vikash Kumar v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC24 Jul 2012CWJC/22281/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Patna High Court quashed medical reports declaring the petitioner unfit for central police recruitment. The court relied on a High Court doctor’s examination confirming the petitioner was fit and directed respondents to appoint him.

What did the court decide?

The impugned medical reports dated 27.08.2011 and 30.11.2011 were quashed; the petitioner was declared medically fit and directed to be appointed.

Vikash Kumar Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Medical Negligence | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22281 of 2011

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Vikash Kumar, S/O Sri Dinesh Singh, R/O Village- Saidpur, Police Station - Khizersarai, District- Gaya.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner. Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Home Commissioner, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶7

The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission (Central Range), 8, A.B., Beiley Road, Allahabad.

¶8

The Director (Examination) Staff Selection Commission, (Central Range), 8, A.B., Beily Road, Allahabad.

¶9

The D.I.G., SHO, S.S.B., Purnea, Bihar.

¶10

The Commandant, Chairman MET, S.D.B., Purnea, Bihar.

¶11

The Commandant (Medical), MET, S.S.B., Purnea.

¶12

.... .... Respondents

¶13

====================================================== For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate (ASST.S G) ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER

¶14

6 24-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and (Later) learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India and its authorities.

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging medical test report with regard to petitioner dated 27.08.2011 held under the Chairmanship of Mr. M. K. Galhaut, Commandant, MET, Sima Surekesha Bal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SSB’ for the sake of brevity) Purnea and medical test report dated 30.11.2011 held at

¶16

Jalandhar by the Review Medical Board and also for a

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.22281 of 2011 (6) dt.24-07-2012

¶18

¶19

direction to the authorities to appoint him on the post of constable in the Central Police Organization and for other ancillary reliefs.

¶20

The facts admitted are that in January, 2011 advertisements were made for appointment of constable in different Central Police Organizations, such as CISF, CRPF, BSF and SSB and the petitioner applied along with all the requisites and admit card was sent to him. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in physical test on 05.04.2011 in the campus of 159 Battalion of CRPF at Bodh Gaya and after being successful in the said test he was directed to appear in the written examination which was held on 05.06.2011 at Patna and in it also the petitioner was found successful. Finally call letter was sent to him for medical test and he was put for the medical examination in the SSB Camp at Purnea on 27.08.2011 in which petitioner was not found fit to be appointed because of four infirmities, namely Pityriasis versicolor, Bitot’s spots, right shoulder drooping and tremor of head when vision is fixed.

¶21

Thereafter, petitioner got himself examined at the Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya where no such defect was found and everything was found medically fit for the said

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.22281 of 2011 (6) dt.24-07-2012

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

post. Hence the petitioner applied for re-medical test within the time prescribed along with the said certificates of the doctors along with all the requisites. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under medical test before the Review Medical Board at Jalandhar where a team of five doctors examined the petitioner and report of the medical Board held on 27.08.2011 was not found correct with respect to two infirmities as the petitioner was found having only two infirmities, namely Pityriasis versicolor and right shoulder drooping and the petitioner was not found fit to be appointed due to those two infirmities.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said medical report dated 27.08.2011 is absolutely frivolous and even though the report of Review Medical Board dated 30.10.2011 is not correct as the authorities were trying to save the Reporting Officer of the Medical examination dated 27.08.2011, although the petitioner had no such defects as has been found by test categorically held at Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya.

¶26

Due to the aforesaid specific claim of the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner, who is present in Court, to be examined by the High Court doctor and to give

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.22281 of 2011 (6) dt.24-07-2012

¶28

¶29

his report on the aforesaid two points. After examining the petitioner thoroughly the doctor of the High Court Dr. Suresh Prasad stated with confidence that neither shoulder of the petitioner was drooping, nor the petitioner was suffering from Pityriasis versicolor. He also stated that the petitioner was a fit person.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the findings of the High Court doctor and submits that the petitioner had been examined by five expert doctors in the Review Medical Board and hence there was no occasion for relying upon doctors who are not experts in the field and rejecting the report of the Review Medical Board on its basis. He further states that if the Court was not satisfied by the report of the Review Medical Board, a second Review Medical Board can be constituted for examining the petitioner and for that Board any expert as desired by this Court can be appointed for examining the petitioner.

¶31

From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the defects pointed out by the Review Medical Board against the petitioner are not very

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.22281 of 2011 (6) dt.24-07-2012

¶33

¶34

complicated in nature, rather they are such defects which can be looked into and verified by a general physician also. In the said circumstances, there is no occasion for disbelieving the

¶35

High Court doctor who is neither an appointee of respondent-authorities, nor has any concern with the petitioner and had examined the petitioner only at the instance of this Court.

¶36

In the said circumstances, this Court agrees with the finding of the High Court doctor and accordingly quashes the impugned medical test report dated 27.08.2011 and Review Medical Board dated 30.11.2011 and declare the petitioner medically fit for being appointed on the post concerned. Respondents-authorities are thus directed to take steps for appointing the petitioner on the relevant post without any further delay after completing all the formalities.

¶37

With these observations/ directions, this writ petition is allowed.

¶38

(S.N. Hussain, J)

¶39

Sunil/-

Vikash Kumar v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar v. the Union of India and Ors.

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

Ram Bilash Sharma Vs B.S.R.T.Corporation and Ors.

Sushant Kumar Mandal Vs the State Bank of India and Ors.

Anjani Kumar Lal Vs The Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Binod Kumar Shrivastava Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Kislay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satish Prasad Datta Vs the Union of India and Ors.