AYUSH PUSHP vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: April 01, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 4645/2024 & CM Appls. 19031-19032/2024
(49) AYUSH PUSHP ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Ms. Akansha Singh, Mr. Anirban Sen and Mr. Rohan Prakash, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak and Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advs. for UOI/SSC
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM Appl. 19031/2024
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4645/2024 & CM Appl. 19032/2024
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.03.2024, whereby the Petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Respondents;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear for a fresh medical examination before an independent board set up by the respondents and if found fit, be appointed for the post of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) with all consequential benefits;
iii. Issue a writ order, or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to Respondents to reconstitute the Review Medical Examination Board for the Petitioner in consonance with the applicable guidelines;
iv. Issue a writ order, or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to Respondent No.2 to take the opinion of concerned specialists or super specialists of Govt. Medical College and Hospital;
v. Pass any such/further orders or directions as this Honble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. In effect, the petitioner has challenged the conclusion drawn by the Review Medical Board declaring the petitioner unfit on the ground of Acute Chronic Infective Etiology (Kochs?).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, there was no pulmonologist in the Board which declared the petitioner Unfit for appointment. He has drawn our attention at page 142 of the paper book to contend that, as per the guidelines, not all the cases of Tuberculosis can be rejected. He submits, in case of treated Tuberculosis, if normal pulmonary functions exist then such a case is treated as fit for appointment. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to paragraph XV, which reads as under:-
XV. EXAMINATION OF LUNGS, PLEURA & MEDIASTINUM
Following are the cause of rejection
1. Evidence of Asthma, including reactive airway disease, exercise-induced bronchospasm or asthmatic bronchitis, reliably diagnosed (Reliable diagnostic criteria may include any of the following elements: substantiated history of cough, wheeze etc.
2. Evidence of bronchitis, acute or chronic.
3. Evidence of bronchiectasis.
4. Evidence of pleurisy with effusion within last 2 years.
5. Tuberculosis
(a) Evidence of active tuberculosis in any form or location is unfit.
(b) Cases of treated tuberculosis along with normal pulmonary functions will be accepted as fit.
4. On perusal of the report, it appears the Review Medical Board which has stated possibly Kochs disease, was also not certain on diagnosis.
5. In any case, the case of the petitioner himself is that he suffered from Tuberculosis, eight years back. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not a case of active Tuberculosis which can be a ground for unfitness.
6. That apart, as the counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was no pulmonologist, we deem it appropriate to set aside the conclusion drawn by the Review Medical Board and refer the petitioner to Army Hospital Research and Referral (R & R) for examination of the petitioner by a newly constituted Board by the Medical Superintendent of the Army Hospital Research and Referral (R & R) within a period of four weeks from today. For this purpose, the Board shall consist of a pulmonologist. The Board shall give a four days advance notice to the petitioner for his appearance.
7. The respondents shall forward all the reports of the earlier Board which had carried out medical examination resulting in his unfitness for the perusal of the newly constituted Board at Army Hospital Research and Referral (R & R).
8. The Board after examination shall submit its report to the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission (respondent No.2), who shall act in accordance with law.
9. The petition along with pending application is disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
APRIL 01, 2024/ds
W.P.(C) 4645/2024 Page 4