The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition and disposed of a pending application. The court held that medical grounds based on a hypertrophic scar and an unhealed tattoo removal scar justified disqualification without interference.
Petition dismissed; pending application disposed of.
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.
$~3
versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Saumya Johari, Advocate with Mr.Amit Kumar, Law Officer for UOI. Mr.Kunal Punj, Govt. Pleader.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
O R D E R % 02.12.2019
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 02, 2019/ mr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with a medical disqualification based on a hypertrophic scar and unhealed tattoo removal scar.
Rohit Kumar & Anr
Union of India & Anr
S. Muralidhar
Talwant Singh
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
