Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 15 February, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 15 February, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021277



                                                                2024:PHHC:021277

CWP-23669-2023                                                                    -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

113                                             CWP-23669-2023
                                                Date of Decision: 15.02.2024


Rohit Kumar                                                            ...Petitioner


                                      Versus


Union of India and others                                          ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-     Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
              Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel,
              for Union of India-respondents
              ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Medical Report dated

07.08.2023 (Annexure P-4) prepared by Medical Board and report dated

08.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) prepared by Appellate Medical Board whereby he

has been declared medically unfit on account of abnormal ECG.

2. The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No.2 dated 04.03.2023

(Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Agniveer Vayu. The petitioner cleared

written as well as physical test. The petitioner was subjected to medical

examination wherein he was declared unfit on account of ‘ECG abnormality-

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy’. The petitioner applied for Appeal Medical

Board. The petitioner was re-examined and again declared unfit on the ground

as noticed in the earlier Medical Report.

1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:06:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021277

2024:PHHC:021277

CWP-23669-2023 -2-

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent was

bound to conduct ECHO Cardiography (2D ECHO) in the light of guidelines

issued with respect to Advertisement No.2/2023 as well as general guidelines

with respect to medical examination of candidates.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

amended guidelines are applicable to officers and petitioner had applied for

Agniveer Vayu. The amended instructions are inapplicable to Agniveer Vayu.

The 2D ECHO is conducted where a candidate is found suffering from

‘Incomplete Right Bundle Branch Block’ (‘IRBBB’). The petitioner was not

found suffering from IRBBB, thus, there was no need to conduct 2D ECHO.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and

perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The petitioner twice was subjected to ECG Test and both times,

he was found unfit. The Medical Board did not find that petitioner is suffering

from disability of IRBBB, thus, he was not subjected to 2D ECHO. The

respondent has relied upon Para 3.3.5 of IAP 4303 (5th edition) which is

reproduced as below:

“3.3.5. ECG. Assessment of a properly recorded ECG (resting

– 12 lead) should be carried out by a medical specialist. Note
will be taken of wave patterns, the amplitude duration and time
relationship. All ECG abnormalities are unfit except
incomplete RBBB which may exist without any structural heart
disease. 2D ECHO should be performed in cases with
incomplete RBBB to rule out an underlying structural heart
disease and opinion of Senior Adviser (Medicine) or
Cardiologist should be obtained.”

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:07:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021277

2024:PHHC:021277

CWP-23669-2023 -3-

7. The petitioner is claiming that as per amended guidelines every

candidate should be subjected to 2D ECHO in case of abnormal ECG. This

Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 directed the respondents to confirm

whether amended guidelines are applicable to every candidate suffering from

abnormal ECG. The respondent during the course of hearing produced

communication dated 14.02.2024 of Medical Advisor, disclosing that

amended guidelines are applicable to officers of Indian Air Force whereas

petitioner has applied for the post of Agniveer Vayu. In view of categoric

stand of the respondent and in the absence of contrary material, this Court

does not find it appropriate to hold that amended guidelines are applicable to

the petitioner and respondents are bound to conduct 2D ECHO in every case

where ECG is found abnormal.

8. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner twice was

subjected to ECG. In both the reports, abnormality has been detected. The

petitioner has applied for a post in Armed Forces where parameters and

standards of medical fitness are higher than civil posts. This Court cannot

substitute opinions of experts.

9. A Division Bench of this Court while adverting with similar

issue in LPA No.871 of 2022 (O&M) titled as Sumit Vs. Union of India

decided on 24.04.2023 has held that once the medical experts have examined

and re-examined the appellant, this Court is not required to sit over the same

and adjudicate upon the correctness of the opinion(s) expressed by the

Medical Experts especially when this Court does not have expertise to decide

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:07:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021277

2024:PHHC:021277

CWP-23669-2023 -4-

as to whether the opinion(s) of the expert are right or wrong. The relevant

extracts of the judgment read as:

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, no illegality or infirmity can be found in the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has
been examined twice firstly by the Recruitment Medical Board
and thereafter by the Appeal Medical Board which has also
obtained opinion from the Command Hospital, Eastern
Command, Kolkata and thereafter taken a decision in the
matter. All medical experts have found the blood pressure and
other parameters not to be in consonance with those
prescribed.

We are also in agreement with the opinion expressed by the
learned Single Judge to the effect that once the medical experts
have examined and re-examined the appellant’s case
thoroughly, this Court is not required to sit over the same and
adjudicate upon the correctness of the opinion(s) expressed by
the Medical Experts especially when this Court does not have
the expertise to decide as to whether the opinion(s) of the
Medical Experts are right or wrong. The process of medical
examination cannot be converted into an endless process and
therefore, finality to the opinion of the Appellate Medical
Board has rightly been prescribed.

As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
appellant on the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 635 of 2018 is concerned, it is evident that the said
appeal was decided on the conjoint consensus statement made
by the parties and therefore, it was an order passed on the
basis of the consent given by the parties and does not form any
binding precedent. In that case as the matter had been allowed
by the learned Single Judge taking into account the medical
reports of an hospital, which was not part of the medical set up

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2024 08:07:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021277

2024:PHHC:021277

CWP-23669-2023 -5-

of the respondents, and inspite of the negative reports being
given by the Recruitment Medical Board as well as the Appeal
Medical Board and therefore, the Union of India had made a
statement that they will get further examination done from the
Army Hospital (Research & Referral) New Delhi, a defence
hospital and not a private one, to which the appellant therein
had agreed and on the basis of the statements made by the
parties with consent, the appeal was disposed of. In such
circumstances, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
appellant on the order passed in LPA No. 635 of 2018 is
misconceived. In the instant case, there is concurrent opinion
given by the Medical Experts of the Recruitment Medical Board
as well as the Appeal Medical Board that the appellant is unfit
for appointment in Indian Air Force.”

10. In view of above discussions and findings as well as judgment of

this Court in Sumit (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that

present petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly

dismissed.

                                                       (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                             JUDGE
15.02.2024
Mohit Kumar
               Whether speaking/reasoned             Yes/No
               Whether reportable                    Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:021277

                                     5 of 5
                  ::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2024 08:07:00 :::