JITENDER YADAV  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

W.P.(C) 11137/2020 Page 1 of 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 4th January, 2021.

+ W.P.(C) 11137/2020

JITENDER YADAV ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satya Narayan, Adv.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Adv. for R-
1,3,4&5 with Dr. Balamurgan N.,
CMO (SG), DG BSF HQ, Delhi and
Mr. Sahil Sharma, DC, Law Officer,
BSF.
HC/GD Sahjad Singh, CISF.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. On 24 th December, 2020, when this writ petition first came up before
us, the following order was passed:
“3. The petitioner, a candidate pursuant to the adv ertisement
dated 3 rd March, 2018 for recruitment of Sub-Inspector in De lhi
Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Assistant
Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has
filed this petition aggrieved from the rejection of his
candidature on the ground of being medically unfit.
4. The Medical Board of the respondents found the
petitioner to be suffering from hypertension. Howev er no
readings of the blood pressure of the petitioner ar e found in the
opinion of the Medical Board. The Review/Appeal Med ical
2021:DHC:8-DB
W.P.(C) 11137/2020 Page 2 of 6
Board also found the petitioner to be suffering fro m
Hypertension. The Review Medical Board has given th ree
readings of the blood pressure measured of the peti tioner, taken
at successive intervals of 10 minutes.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the readi ngs of the
blood pressure got taken by him elsewhere, do not s how the
petitioner to be suffering from Hypertension.
6. The counsel for the respondents appears on adva nce
notice.
7. Our experience with respect to readings of meas urements
done of blood pressure is, and also as informed by some of
medical practitioners, that the blood pressure is g enerally found
to be raised on account of anxiety, while sitting i n front of a
doctor. The old school of doctors thus used to conv erse with the
patient for a few minutes before measuring the bloo d pressure.
The possibility thus, of the readings taken of the blood pressure
of the petitioner when appearing before the Medical Board as
well as the Review/Appeal Medical Board, being an a berration,
cannot be ruled out. We have thus proposed, that th e petitioner
gets himself admitted at a hospital of the choice o f the
respondents, for a period of 2 or 3 days, as may be deemed
proper by the medical experts of the respondents, a nd the blood
pressure of the petitioner be measured at different hours during
the course of the day, to arrive at a finding wheth er the
petitioner indeed suffers from Hypertension. The op tion of
attaching a Holter monitor or other equipment, to t he
petitioner, to take a continuous reading of his blo od pressure,
can also be considered.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is
willing for either of the options.
9. The counsel for the respondents states that he will need
to take instructions.
10. We are conscious that in the recruitment proce ss,
whenever a candidate is found to be suspected of su ffering from
Hypertension, the aforesaid process cannot be under taken with
respect to each of the candidates, putting unnecess ary pressure
2021:DHC:8-DB
W.P.(C) 11137/2020 Page 3 of 6
on the medical institutions of the recruiting agenc y and it may
not be possible for all candidates also to have the mselves
admitted to hospitals for long durations. We are th us open to
any suggestions even from the respondents in this r egard.
11. All that we can say, in the absence of either counsel
telling us the status of the recruitment, is that i n the event of the
petition being allowed, the petitioner shall have t o be
considered further for recruitment.
12. Issue notice.
13. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the resp ondents.
14. List on 4 th January, 2021.”

2. The counsel for the respondents along with Dr. B alamurgan N., CMO
(SG), DG BSF HQ, Delhi appear and Dr. Balamurgan N. has handed over
following note:
“Candidate Jitender Yadav was initially examined o n 22 nd
September, 2020 at RH ITBP Noida by the Detailed Me dical
Board, where his BP was recorded as 168/100 mm Hg w hich is
very well above the normal BP. Accordingly, as per the
Guidelines issued by the MHA Rectt. Medical Examina tion in
Central Armed Police Forces, he was declared unfit (Under
heading XIV. Examination of Heart and Vascular Syst em,
Examination of Blood Pressure of said Guidelines, E xtract of
said Guidelines attached, Annexure P/7 at page 72). As per
Annexure P/9 at page 77 of WP, he was again reexami ned by the
Review Medical Board on 27 th November, 2020 by team of
Doctors where his BP was measured at frequent inter vals of 10
minutes and the same was recorded ‘high’ i.e. 170/1 10 mm Hg,
2021:DHC:8-DB
W.P.(C) 11137/2020 Page 4 of 6
160/110 mm Hg, and 170/100 mm Hg. The said candida te has
undergone many series of investigation relevant to Hypertension
which is showing normal results, except possibility of early signs
of renal stenosis. These kind of candidates are mo re prone to get
Hypertension at young age and lead on to many secon dary
complications to heart, kidney and lungs. These ki nd of
candidates are not fit to work in high altitude and naxal prone
areas.”
With reference to our query in the order dated 24 th December, 2020,
Dr. Balamurgan N. admits that the Textbooks on Medi cine have also
identified “White Coat Hypertension” and admits tha t to avoid the same, BP
has to be measured at intervals of 1 or 2 hours. H e however explains that
the fact that the BP of the petitioner was measured at intervals of 10 minutes
each in the present case and not at the intervals o f 1 or 2 hours, is not
material in the present case because “the cause of BP can be related to the
heart or to the kidney”. The ultrasound examinatio n of the Renal System of
the petitioner, as also reflected in the report of the Review Medical Board,
disclosed the petitioner to be suffering from ‘Rena l Artery Stenosis’ and
other renal issues and which was the cause of his H ypertension. With
reference to our other query contained in the order dated 24 th December,
2020, he states that though Holter does not monitor BP but BP can be
measured otherwise, from time to time.
3. The counsel for the petitioner draws our attenti on to the reports of the
other Medical Specialists consulted by the petition er, to the effect that the
petitioner does not suffer from Hypertension. Howe ver, the counsel for the
2021:DHC:8-DB
W.P.(C) 11137/2020 Page 5 of 6
petitioner admits that the said reports are on the basis of measurement taken
of the BP of the petitioner at the time of visiting the said Medical Specialists
and not on the basis of any other examination/inves tigation, as done by the
Review Medical Board, including of the Renal System of the petitioner.
4. The possibility of the petitioner, before visiti ng the said Medical
Specialists, with the aid of the medicines or other wise, bringing his BP to
within normal range, cannot be ruled out. It is fo r this reason only that we,
in the order dated 24 th December, 2020, had suggested stay of the petition er
in the medical facility of the respondents for a pe riod of 2 or 3 days, to
eliminate the possibility of the petitioner, with t he aid of medicines, bringing
his BP within normal limits on a single day.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has no answer to the same.
6. We also find that none of the other medical prac titioners consulted by
the petitioner have commented or reported adversely to the findings of the
Review Medical Board on the basis of ultrasound of the Renal System of the
petitioner, finding the petitioner to be suffering from Renal Artery Stenosis.
7. The counsel for the petitioner states that since it is a matter of
employment, another opinion may be permitted to be taken, as done in a
number of other orders/judgments.
8. We have, in Akash Sharma Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/2069/2020, Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine
Del 951, Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) 13492/2020 whereaga inst was dismissed on
17 th December, 2020], Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 808, Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC
2021:DHC:8-DB
W.P.(C) 11137/2020 Page 6 of 6
OnLine Del 924 and Vani Viswanathan Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/1678/2020 held that order for another medic al opinion, beyond
the scope of the recruitment procedure, is not to b e passed at the mere
asking of the petitioner and without pleading speci fic facts creating a
suspicion as to the veracity of the opinion of the Medical Board and the
Review Medical Board. The petitioner, in the prese nt case, has not pleaded
any such facts and rather, the findings of the Revi ew Medical Board of the
cause of Hypertension of the petitioner have remain ed un-rebutted by the
petitioner as well as by the other Medical Speciali sts consulted by the
petitioner.
9. In the circumstances, no ground for interfering with the consistent
medical opinion of the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board of the
respondents is made out.
10. Dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

ASHA MENON, J.
JANUARY 4, 2021
‘bs’

2021:DHC:8-DB