Dismissed

Shri Rohit Solanki v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1363/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the Indian Military Academy due to evidence of old Pulmonary Koch’s. The Bench dismissed the petition, rejecting arguments based on subsequent reports, citing unexplained delay and the high physical fitness standards required for military service.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and merits, upholding the medical rejection.

Shri Rohit Solanki Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~34.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1363/2018

¶4

SHRI ROHIT SOLANKI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ramesh, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 13.02.2018

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2016, passed by the Director MS (PS) for the DGMS (Army) informing his father that the petitioner’s candidature for the post of a Technical Graduate in the Indian Military Academy had been turned down on the ground that there was evidence of „Pulmonary Koch‟s‟ in his left lung. The observations made in para 3 of the letter dated 23.12.2016, are reproduced herein below:-

¶11

“ 3. The candidate has been subjected to a Review Medical Board wherein he was examined by Consultant & HOD, Respiratory Medicine at Army Hosp. (R&R), Delhi Cantt. and declared unfit due to evidence of Pulmonary Koch‟s in Left Lung, as per provisions contained in letter No. 76054/Policy/DGMS5(A) dt. 22 Dec 2000. Though the specialist of Sardar Vallab Bahi Patel chest institute has declared him fit for all activities for normal human being as per statement, it is emphasized that military training and duties require a very high level of medical

¶12

WP(C)1363/2018 Page 1 of 4

¶13

fitness and endurance beyond civil life, so that candidate is fit to perform military duties in all terrain and extremes of climate without absenting himself due to illness. Given this requirement, any evidence of old Pulmonary Tuberculosis renders an individual medially unfit for recruitment/commissioning into military service.”

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in February, 2016, the petitioner had applied to the Service Selection Board for considering his candidature in the Indian Army. He was declared medically unfit in May, 2015. After being declared medical unfit, the petitioner had on his own undergone an examination at the Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi University, Delhi. A copy of the report of the Institute is enclosed at page no. 21 of the writ petition.

¶15

Armed with the said report, the petitioner had approached the respondents with a request for convening a Review Medical Board. The said request was acceded to and the Review Medical Board had examined the petitioner and again found him unfit in terms of the letter dated 23.12.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent a CT Scan of his chest at Focus Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi that gave an opinion as follows:-

¶16

“Multiple fibroatelectatic bands with calcific nodules and resultant Mosaic attenuation seen involving apicoposterior segment of left upper lobe and superior segment of left lower lobe. Likely sequelae to previous infective etiology.

¶17

No obvious consolidation or tree-in-bud appearance seen and no obvious mediastinal lymphadenopathy or pleural effusion to suggest any disease activity.

¶18

ADVISE: CLINICAL CORRELATION.”

¶19

¶20

It is the version of the petitioner that he was referred to Focus Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. by a Doctor at AIIMS Hospital, but there is no document placed on record to bear out the said submission. Subsequently, a Doctor in the Department of Medicine at AIIMS Hospital gave a report dated 22.12.2017, stating inter alia that the petitioner is in “usual state of health and old infection in his chest should not affect his physical activity significantly in future.”

¶21

In the first instance, we have called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the delay in approaching the Court for relief when the Review Medical Board had found the petitioner as medically unfit as long back as on 23.12.2016 and there is no explanation offered in the petition for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has nothing to state on the aspect of delay.

¶22

Coming next to the merits of the matter. We have already extracted hereinabove the observations of the Focus Imaging & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., where the petitioner had undergone a CT scan of his chest as also the observations of the Doctor at AIIMS Hospital and the Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi University, Delhi that clearly bear out the observations made out in the impugned letter dated 23.12.2016 that there is some evidence of ‘ Pulmonary Koch‟s‟ in the left lung of the petitioner due to a past history of ill health. This being the position, we do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the observations made by the respondents in the letter impugned herein that a candidate is required to have very high level of medical fitness and endurance beyond civil life to enable him to perform military duties in all extremities of weather, without succumbing to any illness.

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, not only on the ground of unexplained delay and laches in approaching the Court, but also on merits.

¶25

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶26

PRATIBHA RANI, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 ap/na

¶28

Shri Rohit Solanki v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rohit Solanki 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

Executive Engineer (Civil) Sbpd, Prasar Bharti Vs M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited

Binil P.T. Vs the Govt. of Nctd and Ors.

Sunplast India Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Niranjo Devi and Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner Sadar Paharganj Zone and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Sanjay Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dev Datt Verma Vs Kiran Verma

Yashbir & Anr. Vs Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Gulab Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Akhilesh Kuamr Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pramod Singh Parihar Vs Union of India & Ors.