Disposed

Mrigendra Kumar v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC16 Apr 2013CWJC/1507/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, under Article 226, directed the Indian Air Force to re-examine the petitioner by a competent Medical Board at New Delhi to determine his fitness for Group Y Trade, noting that hypertension alone may not disqualify him if examination guidelines were not strictly followed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to constitute a Medical Board at Indian Air Force Hospital, New Delhi, to re-examine the petitioner within three months.

Mrigendra Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1507 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== Mrigendra Kumar S/o Sri Niwas Singh R/o Mahajan Toli No.-1, In Front of Sardar Hospital, Ara, Town Ara, P.O. Ara, Distt.- Bhojpur State- Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Defence Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi 2. Chief of the Air Force Staff Air Force Staff, Air Force Head Quarter, New Delhi 3. Sqn Ldr, RMO-9 Bhubaneshwar Odhisa 4. GP Capt, Med Sqn Cdr 6 Wing, AF, Station Medcare Centre, Air Force Station Barrack Pore District- North 24 Parganas,743122, West Bengal 5. Med. Sqn Cdr. 6 Wing AF Station Medcare Centre, Air Force Station Barrack Pore District- North 24 Parganas,743122, West Bengal 6. Sqn Ldr, RMO, Bhubneshwar, Odhisa 7. Flt, Lt, Medical Officer, 4th Air Force Hospital, Bhubneshwar, Odhisa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Praveen Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi, Asstt. Solicitor General Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 16-04-2013 Heard the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness and validity of medical unfitness certificate dated 25.6.2012 (Annexure-1) as also the appellate medical unfitness certificate dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-2) both issued by the respondents concerned, whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit for enrolment in the Indian Air Force for Group Y Trade.

¶4

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.1507 of 2013 (4) dt.16-04-2013

¶6

2/6

¶7

petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement notified on the Web Site of Indian Air Force for recruitment of Group Y Trade, the petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed format. The respondent concerned issued a call letter to the petitioner for the purpose of conducting selection test on 18.9.2011. The petitioner appeared for selection test at the venue and date prescribed therein, and his initial medical examination was conducted on 19.9.2011 by the Flight Lieutenant, Medical Officer, 4 Air Force Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, and after such medical examination, the petitioner was declared medically fit for enrolment in Indian Air Force. The said Medical fitness certificate has been brought on record as Annexure-3.

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that in the final merit list his name was there at serial 4294, and, accordingly, he was issued call letter dated 16th May 2012 (Annexure-5) for enrollment in the Indian Air Force Group Y Trade. In the call letter dated 16th May 2012 (Annexure-5) it was indicated that his enrollment will be subject to his medical fitness and availability of vacancies in order of merit.

¶9

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 25.6.2012 when the petitioner reported at the prescribed venue at Bhubaneshwar his fresh medical examination

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.1507 of 2013 (4) dt.16-04-2013

¶11

3/6

¶12

was conducted and he was declared medically unfit by the medical officer conducting medical test and he was issued medical unfitness certificate as per Annexure-1, and on appeal again he was declared medically unfit on 6.9.2012. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ground for declaring the petitioner medically unfit does not appear to be sound or reasonable, and if he is examined afresh by the medical board of Air Force Hospital at New Delhi, then he will be found to be medically fit.

¶13

Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been stated that the petitioner was declared medically unfit due to CVS Review (HTN). It has further been stated in para-7 that on the date of medical examination the petitioner was having raised blood pressure and he was found to be suffering from hypertension, and therefore, he was declared medically unfit. Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to Manual of Medical Examinations and Medical Boards issued and published under the authority of Chief of the AIR Staff, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.1507 of 2013 (4) dt.16-04-2013

¶15

4/6

¶16

manner of examination of blood pressure has been indicated in that Manual. The blood pressure of an individual is required to be measured while he is in relaxed condition. However, this Court finds that no material has been brought on record to show that while the petitioner’s medical examination was conducted, the guidelines issued in that Manual was strictly followed.

¶17

It is common knowledge that blood pressure of an individual keeps on fluctuating depending upon the mental and physical condition of the individual. If the blood pressure of an individual is recorded in a normal and relaxed condition, then it may give one reading, but if the blood pressure of the same individual is recorded in a tense condition, then that may give altogether a different reading, but on that ground alone one cannot be declared medically unfit. This Court finds that medical unfitness certificates brought on record as Annexures 1 and 2 do not indicate that the petitioner is suffering from any serious ailment, which may disqualify him from being enrolled under the Indian Air Force.

¶18

After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record as also taking into consideration the provisions of the Manual of Medical Examinations and Medical Boards of the Indian Air Force (Annexure-A to the

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.1507 of 2013 (4) dt.16-04-2013

¶20

5/6

¶21

counter affidavit), this Court is of the opinion that for the ends of justice the petitioner be re-examined once again by a duly constituted Medical Board, appointed by a competent officer at the Indian Air Force Hospital at New Delhi. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent concerned shall fix a date and venue for re-medical examination of the petitioner by a duly constituted Medical Board, and same shall be communicated to the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner shall be obliged to be present there for his re-medical examination by the Medical Board on the date and venue fixed.

¶22

It is further directed that on re-medical examination of the petitioner by a duly constituted Medical Board, if he is found medically fit, then his case shall be reconsidered for his enrolment in the Indian Air Force for Y Trade. However, if he is again found medically unfit, then that shall be final and binding to the petitioner and he shall not be permitted to challenge the said order/medical report in any future proceeding before this Court.

¶23

The entire exercise must be completed by the respondents concerned within a maximum period of three months from today.

¶24

Mr. N.A. Shamsi, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents has undertaken to

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.1507 of 2013 (4) dt.16-04-2013

¶26

6/6

¶27

communicate this order to the competent authorities, so that follow up actions are taken by the authorities concerned for compliance of the present order. It would be open to the petitioner also to produce a certified copy of this order before the respondents concerned, so that the present order is complied with within the time frame.

¶28

This writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

¶29

RPS/-

¶30

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Mrigendra Kumar v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrigendra Kumar v. The 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

Fulena Prasad Singh Vs The Bihar State Power holding Company Limted and Ors.

Upendra Thakur and Anr. Vs The Administrator The B.s.r.t.c.and Ors.

Yogendra Prasad Sahu Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Dayanand Paswan Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Kumari Rekha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.