Vikas Yadav & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶1Petitioner seeks quashing of the Detailed Medical Examination result dated 09.06.2023 and the Review Medical Examination dated

10.06.2023.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of "hypertension". It has also been

contended that "the Revised Uniform Guidelines for review in medical examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs" dated 31.05.2021 have not been followed in this regard.

¶3Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶4With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶5Reference may be made to the abovesaid guidelines prescribed for the Review Medical Board which, inter-alia, reads as under: "(e) For candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hypertension/tachycardia should have been admitted/hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidate's fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient in nature due to excitement etc. or whether it is due to any organic disease. In all such cases X-Ray and electro-cardiographic examinations of heart and blood examinations like cholesterol/lipid profile, S. Creatinine etc. tests should also be carried out."

¶6It is not in dispute that petitioner has been declared "unfit" on the ground of hypertension. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was not hospitalized by the Review Medical Board prior to giving final opinion. The Medical Board, as per the guidelines, should have also ascertained as to whether the rise in blood pressure was transient in nature due to excitement, etc. or whether it was due to an organic disease, as required by the guidelines.

¶7Since the guidelines have clearly not been followed, the opinion rendered by the Review Medical Board cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the findings of the Review Medical Board are set aside. The respondents are directed to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board which shall examine the petitioner, inter-alia, in accordance with the guidelines dated 31.05.2021.

¶8The Review Medical Board be constituted within a period of two weeks from today with at least four days" advance notice to the petitioner.

¶9The petition is disposed of in the above terms. It would be open to the petitioner to avail of any further remedies, if aggrieved by any such further decision of the Review Medical Board.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MANOJ JAIN, J JULY 17, 2023/swati

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 17.07.2023 W.P.(C) 9356/2023 + W.P.(C) 9356/2023 & CM APPL. 35605/2023 & CM APPL. 35606/2023 & CM APPL. 35607/2023 VIKAS YADAV & ANR ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rauf Rahim with Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Banga, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Rupali, GP. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN