High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 09 SHI CK 0018

Ajay Kumar vs Union of India, & Ors.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 14 September 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
CASE NUMBER
2316 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 598 words
1.

On 06.09.2017, this Court had passed the following orders:-

"The petitioner participated in the recruitment process initiated by the respondents at Dr. Y.S. Parmar Horticulture University, Nauni, District Solan, H.P. with effect from 19.10.2015 to 22.10.2015. The candidates'' initial medical examination was carried out on 21.10.2015 where it is alleged that the disability of the petitioner with regard to "Visual Acuity Lower than 6/6" was detected. The petitioner thereafter was referred for specialist opinion to Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir where he was reviewed by Ophthalmologist and declared medically fit for the medical category on 30.11.2015.

2.

On being declared medically fit, the petitioner became eligible for common entrance examination scheduled for Soldier General Duty to be held at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jutogh, District Shimla, H.P. on 31.1.2016. After passing the aforesaid test, the petitioner was scheduled to be despatched to the Dogra Regimental Centre, Faizabad (UP) on 21.3.2016. However, before such despatch, the petitioner was required to undergo routine screening to negate any gross sickness or disability which may have occurred during the intervening period between initial medical examination till final despatch. It was during this screening that the petitioner was alleged to have excessive trembling of hands (Digital Tremors) and on further check-up reasons of trembling was also found to be increased heart rate (Tachycardia). The petitioner was referred to Senior Recruiting Medical Officer at Headquarter Recruiting at Ambala for expert opinion and thereafter directed to undergo review medical in which he was not found fit.

3.

It would be evident from the aforesaid narration of facts that in the earlier medical examination conducted, the petitioner has been found to be fit and it is only before his despatch that he is alleged to have been diagnosed with excessive trembling of hands (Digital Tremors) which is alleged to have been caused due to increase heart rate (Tachycardia).

4.

Admittedly, there are two medical reports available on the record relating to the petitioner, one that has found him to be fit for despatch and the other which has found him to be unfit. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, I feel that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be referred to independent Civilian Medical Board.

5.

Accordingly, Chief Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Shimla, H.P. is directed to constitute a Medical Board to examine the petitioner in light of the conflicting reports so given by the respondents authorities. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Medical Board so constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Shimla on 8.9.2017. After conducting the medical examination of the petitioner, the Chief Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Shimla is requested to submit the report to this Court, as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 14.9.2017."

2.

In compliance to the aforesaid directions, a Medical Board was constituted by C.M.O., Shimla, who in turn, have examined the petitioner and submitted the report wherein it has been observed that "at present there is no tachycardia and trembling of hand, hence, he is fit for any kind of job."

3.

In view of the aforesaid report, I am of the considered view that the petitioner needs to be re-examined by the respondents by constituting a Review Medical Board. Let, needful be done within six weeks.

4.

Let copy of the report of the Medical Board be supplied to the parties within two days.

5.

In view of the subsequent developments, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition and the same is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy dasti.