Panel suggests sweeping changes in medical norms for govt jobs
- HSBC Indian list just doubled to 1195 names. Balance: Rs 25420 cr
- Manjhi expelled, Nitish stakes claim to form govt in Bihar
- Hanging of Afzal Guru was 'wrong' & 'badly' handled, says Shashi Tharoor
- Have given it my all, not nervous about result: Kiran Bedi
- Japanese girl allegedly raped by tourist guide in Jaipur
A committee chaired by the director general of health services (DGHS) has proposed sweeping changes in the medical parameters for candidates applying for government jobs.
In the light of advanced medical treatment now available for many conditions, the Prime Minister's Office had suggested a relook at the diseases for which a candidate could be declared "unfit" for entry into the civil services and other government jobs.
Diabetes/hypertension may no longer attract a "permanently unfit" certificate, and a woman found pregnant at the time of the medical test may not be rejected outright.
Persons with a squint or one functional eye may not be ruled out for technical services, as is the practice now. As per the proposed norms, they should be fit for all services except the Railways, IPS and for geologist jobs.
Candidates with malignancies or transplanted organs are to be deemed unfit, but those with benign tumours should get the green signal, the committee has proposed.
For all diseases that are curable by surgery, in fact, there may be a denomination of "temporarily unfit". Candidates could be declared fit once they have had the surgery.
Apart from DGHS Dr Jagdish Prasad, the 14-member committee comprised senior doctors from Delhi's Safdarjung and RML Hospitals. The recommendations have been sent to the health ministry, and will be notified soon, sources said.
The earlier provision of candidates with hydrocele, varicose veins and piles being outrightly rejected on medical grounds could change too. For jobs that do not require long hours of standing, candidates with varicose veins should be termed fit, the panel says.
The committee also finds fault with the practice of those with low-grade colour vision being deemed fit for medical officer's posts but unfit for teaching and non-teaching posts of medical officers. It feels that the distinction should be speciality specific rather than post specific as many non-surgical specialities like skin, psychiatry and other non-clinical subjects do not require full colour vision.