Disposed

Ravindra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/737/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi, in a special leave order, directed the Navy to conduct a fresh medical examination of a petitioner denied Sailor enlistment due to hypertension. A mandatory two-week wait was fixed before re-examination to ensure accurate blood pressure readings.

What did the court decide?

Redirected respondents to issue intimation for a mandatory two-week delay before fresh medical examination to prevent camouflage of hypertension via medication.

Ravindra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 737/2016

¶4

RAVINDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 02.02.2016

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 18^th August, 2015 passed by the respondent No.4-Recruiting Officer, Navy declaring him unfit for enrolment in the Navy for the post of a Sailor on the ground that he is suffering from hypertension.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

W.P.(C) 737/2016

¶15

had applied for the post of a Sailor in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondent No.4 and he was declared successful in the written test vide result dated 26^th June, 2015 whereafter he was to report to the Recruiting Office at INS, Chilka along with the other candidates.

¶16

On 18^th August, 2015, the Medical Officer had examined the petitioner and declared him unfit on the ground that he is suffering from Hypertension. As per the averments made in the writ petition, when the petitioner returned to his home, his parents took him to a government hospital at Bharatpur on 2^nd September, 2015 and to AIIMS in Delhi on 4^th September, 2015, where his blood pressure was recorded as normal. Hence, the present petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that the petitioner’s blood pressure was taken on 17^th August, 2015 at INS, Chilka itself and to overcome the white coat syndrome, the doctor at the Navy Hospital had examined the petitioner periodically and taken several readings to verify his blood pressure, but each time his blood pressure had revealed that he is hypertensive as the recording was 170/90 mm. It is in this background that the petitioner’s case was turned down.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

W.P.(C) 737/2016

¶21

provision in the Navy for a Review Medical Board due to which, the petitioner has not been able to make a representation to the respondents for a review of his case. He submits that the petitioner is still ready and willing to submit himself before the Review Medical Board.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents states that to obviate any scope of the petitioner being on medication for treatment of hypertension, which would camouflage the results, he would have to stay at a place designated by the respondents for a period of two weeks whereafter they shall conduct his fresh medical examination for hypertension. The said suggestion is acceptable to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to give a written intimation of the date, time and venue to the petitioner through counsel informing him of the place where he shall report for the said purpose. The petitioner shall be examined after a period of two weeks from the date when he presents himself before the respondents and his blood pressure shall be measured to rule out hypertension. The opinion of the Review Medical Board so constituted by the Commandant, Navy Hospital shall be communicated to the respondents, who shall in turn intimate the

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

W.P.(C) 737/2016

¶26

same to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the said report/opinion. If the petitioner’s case is rejected for any reason, then a copy of the opinion of the Review Medical Board shall be furnished to him.

¶27

It is clarified that the order passed above is based on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and shall not be considered as a precedent in any other case.

¶28

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

¶29

Court Master to learned counsel for the respondents for compliance.

¶30

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶31

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 02, 2016

¶33

¶34

Page 4 of 4

¶35

W.P.(C) 737/2016

Ravindra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra 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

Ajeet Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Employment and Training and Ors.

Mangla Oil Carrier Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

M/S Rathore Box Maker Vs Gopi Chand

Dharampal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramesh Chander Vs Union of India & Ors.

N L Vaish Vs Shroff'S Charity Eye Hospital

Assam Gas Company Limited Vs Eastern India Powertech Limited & Ors.

Sushil Kumar Arora & Anr. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corpopration & Anr.

Nabin Kishor Chouhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Const. Hira Nand Vs UOI & Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

S.C.Singh Vs U.O.I & Ors.

Ram Naresh Vs Union of India & Anr.