Dismissed

Ankur v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/9611/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his unfitness declaration due to haemorrhoids. The court held that under Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines, haemorrhoids warrant rejection and recurrence is possible. It dismissed the plea for another opinion or board reconstitution.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for another medical opinion and reconstitution of the Medical Board was dismissed.

Ankur Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:01.10.2024 16:36 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

Hospitalj Jahangirpuri,New Delhi, for a medical examination. Upon his medical examination, the said Hospital had issued a Medical Fitness Certificatedated 29.04.2015,wherein it was opined that the petitionerhad been operated for external haemorrhoids at 9'o clock position and was declared fit for normal duty.

¶3

Armed with the aforesaid opinion, the petitioner had again approached the respondents on 30.04.2015 and handed over the Medical Certificate dated 29.04.2015. On receiving the said document, the respondents had called upon the petitioner to submit an appeal against the medical unfitness, which was duly submitted by him. Vide letter dated 14.07.2015,the petitioner was referred to a Surgical Specialist at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi for an opinion.

¶4

Thepetitionerreportedat Safdarjung^ on 15.07.2015. Asper the report of the said Hospital, the;p^titi6nerhad haemorrhoidsat 9'o clock position. The petitioner again presented.himselfbefore the Review Medical Board on 16.07.2015. The Board examined^the report forwarded by SafdarjungHospitaland physicallyexaminedthe^petitionerand yet again declaredhim unfit on the grounli^iifrom haemorrhoidsat 9'0 clock position.

¶5

Counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately thereafter, the petitioner had gone back to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Delhi where he had undergonesurgeryfor haemorrhoidsand soughta fresh examinationand the concerned specialist had opined that he was not suffering from haemorrhoids. Based on the aforesaid opinion dated 17.07.2015, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia that the respondents be directed to obtain yet another medical opinion and the

¶6

W.P.(C) 9611/2015

¶7

Page2 of3

¶8

Medical Board may be reconstituted to examine his fitness.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents states that medical opinion is that even after surgical removal, haemorrhoids can recur, which is why under the Guidelines of Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles updated as on May, 2015, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Police Division-II), Government of India, it has been recommended that cases of haemorrhoids should be rejected in terms of clause XIII (f)(iii). He hands over the Guidelines which have been perused by us.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid Guidelines, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by directing: the respondents to refer the petitioner to another specialist for obtaining medical opinion or for reconstituting the Medical Board. The Guidelines mentioned above clearly prescribe that a candidate suffering from haemorrhoids ought to be rejected. Further, given the fact that the -petitioneris suffering from haemorrhoids, though presently treated, and reeurrencie.ofthe;:sai cannot be ruled out, we are not inclined-to, enter^in;-tifte-pi^efitr^tition, which is accordinglydismissed,while leayinglKe p|lSiest6.beartheirown costs.

¶11

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶12

SUNIL GAUR, J

¶13

MARCH 02, 2016 rkb/mk/sk

¶14

Page 3 of3

¶15

W.P.(C) 9611/2015

Ankur v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur v. Union of India and 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

Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Subhash Chander Sehgal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prakash Chand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogander Singh and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

Saurav Kumar and Ors. Vs Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Narendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shribhagwan Sharma and Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. Vs Vinai Kumar Srivastav & Anr.

Prakash Chand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogander Singh and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

Uttam Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Flt Cdt Sumit Kumar Vs Union of India

Gopal Majhi Vs Union of India & Anr.

Charia Barla Vs Union of India & Anr.