Writ petition challenging a medical unfitness order rejecting a Sailor candidate in the Indian Navy due to ocular opacity. The court held the discharge was justified as it fell within the employer's domain and prescribed procedures were followed.
Petition dismissed as being devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Nirankar Verma, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr.Rohan Gupta & Mr. S.S. Rai, Advocates for respondent No.1-UOI Mr. Vikran Singh, Advocate with Captain A.K. Sinha for respondents No.2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
% 02.02.2016
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 728/2016
had applied for the post of a Sailor in the Indian Navy pursuant to an advertisement published by the respondents. Upon receipt of a call letter, petitioner had appeared in the written examination and was declared successful in the result declared on 10th September, 2015. He was thereafter subjected to a medical test and his candidature was rejected due to arcus juvenilis, a medical condition described as a white, grey or blue opaque ring in the corneal margin (peripheral corneal opacity) or white ring in front of the periphery of the iris.
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 728/2016
was first medically examined on 10th September, 2015 and as per the prescribed procedure, a candidate is required to appear before the Review Medical Board within twenty one days from the date mentioned in Para-2 of the Review Certificate. The cooling off period for the petitioner before presenting himself before the Review Medical Board if reckoned from 12th September, 2015, would end on 12th October, 2015. Even in Review Medical Board held on 12th October, 2015, the medical condition of the petitioner was declared as the same i.e. as existing earlier. In other words, it was confirmed once again that petitioner was suffering from acute arcus senilis in both eyes and thus, he was declared unfit for being appointed.
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 728/2016
which is a sign of decreased blood flow to the affected eyes and is an indicator of a high level of cholesterol in the blood, which in itself is an independent risk for heart ailments and it was for this reason that his candidature had to be turned down.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2016
r
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 728/2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Medical Officer was justified in rejecting the petitioner's candidature for being medically unfit due to bilateral arcus.
SURESH
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
HIMA KOHLI
SUNIL GAUR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
