Dismissed

Ajay v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC4 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/11847/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders declaring him medically unfit for Indian Air Force recruitment due to Acne Vulgaris and Cubitus Valgus. The court rejected the plea for a new examination, affirming the Appeal Medical Board's finding based on the manual's classification of Nodulocystic Acne as a disability.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not permitted an additional medical examination and the challenge to the unfit orders was dismissed.

Ajay Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11847/2018 AJAY ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Bhanu Gupta, Advocate.

¶3

versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul and Mr. Soumava Karmakar, Advocates for R-UOI.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶6

O R D E R % 04.12.2018

¶7

The Petitioner challenges the orders dated 23^rd July 2018 and 7^th September 2018 thereby declaring him medically unfit for recruitment as Airman in Group X (Technical) or Group Y (Technical) of the Indian Air Force.

¶8

After being declared successful in the written examination for selection and then being assessed as fit in further parameters, the initial medical examination that took place on 7^th June 2018 found him unfit on account of: 9i) Acne Vulagaris and, (ii) Cubitus Valgus.

¶9

The Appeal Medical Board found him fit for ‘Cubitus Valgus’, but unfit for ‘Acne Vulagaris’. Additionally, he was found to be suffering from ‘Nodulocystic Acne’. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the

¶10

Respondents, this is a disability that merits declaration of ‘unfit’ category as per clause 3.8.3 (b) of Chapter 8 (Dermatological System) of the Manual of Medical Examinations and Medical Boards published under the Authority of the Chief of the Air Staff.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that the Court should permit the Petitioner to be examined once more at the Army Research & Referral Centre. With the Petitioner having been examined twice and concurrently being found to be unfit and with the Appeal Medical Board having examined the Petitioner and given an objective finding that one of the disabilities pointed out in the initial medical examination existed and the other was absent, there is no ground for doubting the correctness of the opinion of the Appeal Medical Board. No ground is made out for interference.

¶12

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶14

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

¶15

DECEMBER 04, 2018 nk

Ajay v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.T.C. Vs Madan Lal & Anr.

M/S Kay International Vs Raghubir Singh

Huma Saad Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Jha, Vs D.R.I

Shri Krishan Kumar Agarwal Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bpl-Kpl (Jv) Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and Anr.

Rahul Kumar Vs South Delhi M.C.D. through D.C.M.C.D. Green Park & Ors.

Vikash Sharma Vs South Delhi M.C.D. Thorugh D.C.M.C.D. Green Park and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jaypal Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Chander Pal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Social Welfare Association (Regd) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dalimi Bala Medhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abdul Sattar Vs Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.