Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMAD NASEEM KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohammad Naseem Khan v. Union Of India, New Delhi And Others - WRIT - A No. 7209 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2155 (9 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7209 of 2007

Mohammad Naseem Khan

Versus

Union of India and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature for being appointed as Sepoy (G.D.) in Central Reserve Police Force. Petitioner appeared in written test, and thereafter he was asked to face medical examination on 22.02.2004. Petitioner was declared medically unfit. Petitioner has contended that thereafter he got himself medically examined at Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi. Chief Medical Superintendent of the said hospital contradicted the medical report of the authorities. Petitioner has contended that unnecessarily, he was declared medically unfit. Petitioner requested to consider his claim ignoring the medical report dated 22.02.2004. Petitioner has contended that he was expecting favourable consideration, and as nothing was being done, he preferred writ petition No.38212 of 2004, wherein this Court on 04.08.2006 passed order directing the respondents to grant fresh opportunity to petitioner  for re-examination medically. Thereafter, again medical examination has been carried out and petitioner has again been declared medically unfit in the medical examination conducted  at New Delhi by mentioning as follows:

"UNFIT DUE TO CUBITUS VALGUS DEFORMITY BOTH UPPER LIMB AS CARYNG ANGLE IS MORE THAN 15 DEGREE."

After the petitioner has been declared medically unfit, communication was sent to him. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, has contended with vehemence that on earlier occasion, petitioner was declared unfit on four counts and this time he has been declared unfit on one count only, and this shows that the medical examination conducted by Chief Medical Superintendent, Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi, gives correct picture, as such petitioner is entitled for selection and appointment on the post of Sepoy (G.D.) treating him to be selected as such.

From the side of respondents, it has been contended that petitioner has been re-examined medically at New Delhi and the authorities in their wisdom have declared petitioner medically unfit, and reasons have been assigned in support of the same. This Court is not Court of Appeal and the matter pertains to enrollment in a disciplined force, as such no interference is warranted.    

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges, is to the effect that in the present case on earlier occasion petitioner was declared medically unfit on 22.02.2004. Thereafter he got himself medically examined at Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi, where he was declared medically fit. Petitioner requested for re-examination medically, and as no action was taken, he filed writ petition and on intervention of this Court, he was re-examined medically at Central Composite Hospital -I, New Delhi, and was declared "UNFIT DUE TO CUBITUS VALGUS DEFORMITY BOTH UPPER LIMB AS CARYNG ANGLE IS MORE THAN 15 DEGREE."  Once Central Composite Hospital has medically examined the petitioner and has declared him unfit and reasons  have been recorded for the same, then this Court cannot sit over and above the opinion expressed by medical experts and cannot issue direction for ignoring the aforesaid medical opinion. It is clear that petitioner is unfit to be enrolled as member of a disciplined force. No motive, whatsoever, has been assigned to the Doctors, who examined the petitioner at Central Composite Hospital-I, New Delhi. Once, petitioner has been medically re-examined and the opinion has been formed based on reasons , there is no scope of taking different view directing to consider the petitioner for appointing him as Sepoy (G.D.).  Writ petition lacks substance, and the same is dismissed.

09.02.2007

SRY.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.