The Allahabad High Court while dismissing an appeal said that the scope of judicial review of the medical examination report of the Medical Board is very limited and unless it is shown that the department has acted arbitrarily or has violated the guidelines made for conduct of medical examination, the Court would not be justified in interfering in such matters.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi passed this order while hearing a Special Appeal filed by Rajesh Kumar and Another.
The special appeal arises out of an order passed by the Single Judge whereby the appellants’ grievance in respect of their candidature having been overlooked on account of a medical ailment has been rejected.
The Single Judge has noticed the facts of the case as per which the appellants applied for the post of Constable Driver in the Central Police Organization-SSB. They were found suffering from small hydrocele. The Rules of recruitment permitted conduct of review medical examination, wherein also the appellants were non-suited. Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the appellants approached writ Court.
The Single Judge has observed that the respondents fairly treated the appellants in the matter of recruitment and the conduct of medical examination as well as the review medical examination was found in accordance with the procedure laid down for recruitment.
The Court noted that,
It is not in issue that the physical examination of the candidate provisionally selected for appointment in the Central Police Organization has to be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Detailed guidelines were earlier issued on 20.5.2015, which have been partially modified on 21.5.2021. The guidelines have been produced before us. The manner of conduct of examination has been specified in the guidelines. Clause 6 contains various physical ailments/deformity on account of which the candidature of a candidate could be rejected.
With reference to the above clause, counsel for the appellants submits that in case of small hydrocele the guidelines permits a candidate to be selected even in a case where the candidate is operated upon and no bad scar is left after operation. With reference to the above provisions, it is urged before us that the respondents ought to have given a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to get him operated upon and thereafter the candidature ought to have been considered afresh.
Counsel submitted that the purpose of holding a review medical test is to allow opportunity to the candidate to get such operation performed so that the candidature is not discarded on a ground which otherwise could be overlooked.
The Court observed that,
We have considered the respective submissions raised at the bar. The interpretation which is sought to be suggested by the appellants does not appeal to us. Clause 25 categorically provides that in case of large hydrocele, even if it is curable by operation, the candidate would be rejected for selection. In the case of small hydrocele the candidate could still be selected even if it is found that he has been operated upon and no bad scar is left after operation. The clause, in our understanding, would indicate that in the eventuality where a candidate prior to his medical examination by the board undergoes operation, and no scar is left after such a procedure is performed, the candidate can be selected. Clause 25 cannot be construed as giving an opportunity to the candidate after his rejection on medical ground to avail the remedy of operation and, thereafter claim a right of fresh consideration by the medical board. In the event such contention is accepted, every candidate who is found suffering with small hydrocele will be conceded a right to get himself operated and thereafter appear afresh, for medical examination. That does not appear to be the intent of the guidelines.
The limited issue which has to be examined by the medical board is as to whether on the date of medical examination the candidate was medically fit or unfit. Whether the candidate was accorded consideration in terms of the policy/rules for medical examination would be the issue. It is only the correctness of such opinion by the medical board which can be examined in the review medical board. Judicial review of such administrative action would not involve recognition of a right in a candidate to get himself operated upon, even after he has been validly found unfit on a particular medical exigency so as to get himself operated and thereafter apply for fresh consideration of his candidature.
“In view of the discussions and deliberations held above, we find that the Single Judge has correctly examined the issue and the appellant cannot assert a right under the applicable policy to avail the remedy of medical procedure after he is declared medically unfit and seek fresh medical examination”, the Court further observed while dismissing the appeal.