Ashok vs Union Of India & Ors

SL. No.,Name of Teeth,Teeth in either jaw,"Number allotted

for each tooth, if

in good functional

apposition to the

corresponding

teeth in the other

jaw",Dental Points

1.,Incisors,4,1,4

2.,Canine,2,1,2

3.,Premolars,4,1,4

4.,Molars,6,2,12

petitioner is concerned, cannot be doubted.",,,,

As far as the reliance on the report of Government Hospital, Jhajjar is concerned, in view of the fact that the petitioner was examined by a",,,,

specialist doctor at the stage of the RME who opined that the petitioner was suffering from ‘insufficient dental points’, we again find no merit.",,,,

In the present case, the DME as also the RME have found the petitioner to be medically unfit based on the insufficient dental points, found to be",,,,

thirteen in number. It is to be noted that the RME is held merely to ensure that no error has been made at the DME stage in examining the candidate.,,,,

Once the RME report has confirmed the results of the DME, it is not for this Court to disregard or doubt these medical reports on the basis of a report",,,,

from a civil hospital.,,,,

This Court, in its judgment dated 29.11.2021 in Sandeep vs. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force & Ors., W.P. (C) 13456 of 2021, has held that",,,,

medical opinion can vary from professional to professional, but once the recruitment procedure provides for finality and is found to have provided for a",,,,

review to eliminate the possibility of human error, the finality has to be accepted, unless a case for interference is made out.",,,,

In Yogita Yadav vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 12858 of 2021, this Court has held that a further review is to be resorted to only in exceptional",,,,

circumstances; in the event of glaring inconsistencies; or for any other exceptional reasons, for otherwise, the recruitment process shall remain",,,,

endless.,,,,

This Court, in its judgment dated 21.12.2020 in Km. Priyanka vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10783 of 2020, has also held that the standard of",,,,

physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than for the civilian employment. It was held that it is the doctors of the,,,,

Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties and the physical standards required to discharge the same. It was further held as under:,,,,

“8. We have on several occasions observed that the standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more,,,,

stringent than for civilian employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of",,,,

India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 808 and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India,,,,

2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, held that once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of",,,,

duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not",,,,

medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited",,,,

personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals,,,,

are unaware of the demands of the duties in the Forces.â€​,,,,

In the present case, the report of Government Hospital, Jhajjar is even otherwise vague and does not give the count of petitioner’s dental",,,,

points. No reliance can, therefore, be placed over this report.",,,,

In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.",,,,