Disposed

Gajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/366/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding recruitment for the Indian Army, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority requesting a review medical examination, pending submission of a fresh representation within two weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit representation within two weeks; authority to decide and pass speaking order within two weeks.

Gajendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 366/2016 & C.Ms. 1521/2016 & 1522/2016 GAJENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 15.01.2016

¶10

The petitioner prays for issuing directions to the respondents to constitute a Review Medical Board at the Army Hospital to examine him and ascertain his medical fitness.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had submitted an application on 8^th November, 2014, for admission in CDSE(I) 2015 course at IMA, for recruitment in the Indian Army. Vide communication dated 7^th August, 2015, the petitioner was informed that he had cleared the SSB selection process and he was called upon to appear for his medical examination at the Command Hospital, Bengaluru, where he was declared unfit for selection on account of the fact that he has a genetic condition called Spina

W.P.(C) 366/2015

Page 1 of 3

Bifida.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had undertaken an independent medical examination at Apollo Hospital on 2^nd September, 2015 and 19^th September, 2015, that had confirmed that he had the mildest form of Spina Bifida , which had not led to any physical or neurological defect or disability. In the light of the aforesaid report, the petitioner seeks reconsideration before the Review Medical Board.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that the Super Specialty Report obtained by the petitioner from a private hospital does not state that he is not suffering from Spina Bifida Occulta, which is a genetic condition, and it is for this reason that his request for fresh examination by the Review Medical Board cannot be considered.

¶17

It has been enquired from counsel for the petitioner if he has submitted any representation to the respondents in the light of the Report filed at Annexure P-6 (colly.) along with the present petition, to which the reply is in the negative. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to making such a representation.

¶18

Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

W.P.(C) 366/2015

¶21

representation along with the relevant documents including those enclosed with this petition before the competent authority within two weeks, which shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order under written intimation to him within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

The petition and applications are disposed of.

¶23

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of

¶24

Court Master to the counsel for respondents for compliance.

¶25

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶26

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶27

JANUARY 15, 2016 r

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C) 366/2015

Gajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Chauhan Vs Tribunal (Under Maintenance & Welfare of the Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007) (Central District

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Ved Prakash Gupta and Anr.

Npsc Co-Operative Group Housingh Society Ltd. Vs Shashi Sood & Others

Rahul & Ors. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

A-One Marketing Division Vs Chief Post Master General & Ors.

Cpl Shankar Bhagwan Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jamil Khan & Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

Ashish Srivastava Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Naresh Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Neelam Nanda & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Nusrat Parveen Khan Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

D. Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rannvijay Mishra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Cpl Shankar Bhagwan Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.