BIKASH SAIBAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-11-43
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on November 15,2018

Bikash Saibam Appellant
VERSUS
Union Of India And 2 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.
(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 03.12.2011 issued by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Police Force and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles for the year 2012. However, when medical examination was conducted upon the petitioner after he was found successful in all the other tests, he was found to be having hypertension as well as hypertraophic post burn scar approx. 9 c.m. on left side of chest. Since the scheme of the recruitment permits conducting of a review medical test if applied for at the cost and expense of the candidate concerned, the petitioner sought for a review medical examination. Accordingly, he was examined by a review medical board on 28.03.2014. This time the petitioner was found to have drastic hypertension. It was remarked that on physical examination, his blood pressure was found to be 130/100 m.mHg. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
(3.) Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Uniform Guidelines for medical examination of Constables/General Duty in Central Assam Police Forces and Assam Rifles issued by the Office of the Additional Director General (Medical) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on 13.07.2011 submits that the respondent authorities concerned have failed to comply with the guidelines. By referring to Clause 66 of the said guidelines, he submits that candidates are not to be rejected on the basis of high reading of blood pressure. In case the blood pressure is recorded to be higher than 140 mm systolic and/or 90 mm Hg diastolic, at least 2 more recordings should be taken in a lying position at an interval of 6 to 8 hours before declaring him unfit. By further referring to the guidelines to be followed by the Medical Review Board under Clause 73 of the said Guidelines, he submits that candidates who have been rejected on the ground of hyper tension amongst others should be admitted/ hospitalized by the Board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidates fitness or otherwise. The hospitalization report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is of transient 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. Reference made by the learned counsel as above is seen at Clause 3(g) under the heading "Guidelines for review Medical boards". Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that under the circumstance, since the guidelines have not been followed, Court may direct the respondents authority concerned to allow the petitioner to undergo another medical test. In support of his submission, he also refers to a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hriday Basumatary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2008 3 GauLT 331.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.