High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/11769/2018

Sachin v. Union Of India & ORS

2018-12-04Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula3 pages

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11769/2018 SACHIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms. Bhanu Gupta, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Ms. Tejasvita Sachdeva, Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Mr. Agnivesh and Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Advocates for R-UOI.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 04.12.2018

1. The Petitioner questions the orders dated 24th July 2018 and 15th September 2018 declaring him medically unfit for being appointed as Airman in Group X (Technical) or Group Y (Technical) of the Indian Air Force.

2. After being declared successful in the written examination for selection and then being assessed as fit in further parameters, the Petitioner was first called for medical examination on 24th July 2018, by a Board of Officers (BOO) (Medical Officers) which declared him unfit on three counts: (i) ECG

abnormality, (ii) Hypertension and (iii) Tachycardia.

3. The Petitioner opted for an appeal. The Appeal Medical Board at the AMB Centre, SMC Centre, Air Force Station Chandigarh on 31st August 2018 referred to specialists for their opinion. On 12th September 2018, a classified specialist found him fit for 'tachycardia' but unfit for 'hypertension'. It is to be noted that he was further evaluated by the concerned specialist on 14th September 2018 and declared fit for 'ECG abnormality.'

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he must be given one more chance and be sent for a further medical examination as according to him, a person without any ECG abnormality or suffering tachycardia cannot possibly be suffering from hypertension.

5. This determination is best left to the experts who on two successive occasions, have found that the Petitioner suffers from hypertension to a degree that renders him unfit for recruitment. The certificate enclosed by the Petitioner will not make any difference to the position since the Appeal Medical Board comprises of experts in their respective fields.

6. Further, when the Appeal Medical Board found on an objective assessment that two of the conditions named by the BOO for rejection of the candidate to be non-existent but one of the categories to be present namely, hypertension, there is no ground to doubt the correctness of the report of the Appeal Medical Board.

7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

DECEMBER 04, 2018 nk