Disposed¶21

Girish Kumar Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand

Service – medical examination direction

Uttarakhand HC12 Mar 2025WPSS/283/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital; Writ Petition (S/S) No. 283 of 2025; Girish Kumar Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand; teacher; compulsory retirement; Screening Committee meeting 27.11.2024; Chief Education Officer recommendation; Director, School Education notice dated 02.11.2024; State Medical Board examination; COPD Bronchial Asthma BPH; Bronchitis; psychiatric clearance; AIIMS Rishikesh; no interference; writ petition disposed; Ravindra Maithani, J.; 12.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

No interference made; the writ petition stood disposed of with the Court's expression of confidence that the State Medical Board will conduct the medical examination of the petitioner with standard protocol. ¶21

Girish Kumar Goswami Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should interfere with the impugned direction dated 02.11.2024 requiring the petitioner, a serving teacher, to undergo medical examination by the State Medical Board.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The AIIMS Rishikesh document (Annexure 3) did not give the petitioner any psychiatry clearance; it records at Sr. No. 3 only that, according to the petitioner himself, there are no psychiatric issues, and the petitioner did not disclose the workplace legal dispute for which he sought such clearance.

¶16

Key takeaways

On the history disclosed in Annexure 1, respondent no. 4, the Chief Education Officer, had recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner.ratio¶18
The Screening Committee for compulsory retirement convened its meeting on 27.11.2024 and recommended examination of the petitioner by the State Medical Board; the impugned direction flowed from that recommendation.ratio¶18
The Court saw no reason to interfere in the matter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service — medical examination direction — Uttarakhand High Court (Nainital), Ravindra Maithani, J., 12.03.2025. A teacher of about 30 years' service challenged the notice dated 02.11.2024 of the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand (respondent no. 3) requiring him to be examined by the State Medical Board. The petitioner claimed he suffered from Bronchitis and COPD (State Medical Board opinion dated 27.06.2024: 'chronic case of COPD Bronchial Asthma BPH') and relied on an AIIMS Rishikesh Psychiatry OPD record stating 'reports no psychiatric issues'; he alleged discrimination and pressure by school authorities. The Court found that the AIIMS document (Annexure 3) conferred no psychiatry clearance and only recorded the petitioner's own assertion, and that per Annexure 1 the Chief Education Officer (respondent no. 4) had recommended compulsory retirement while the Screening Committee for compulsory retirement (meeting 27.11.2024) recommended medical-board examination rather than acting on its own — a procedure the Court termed fair. Declining interference and expressing confidence that the Board would examine the petitioner with standard protocol, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 283 of 2025

¶2

Girish Kumar Goswami ….....Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Uttarakhand and others .….Respondents

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

The challenge in this petition is made to the notice dated 02.11.2024 issued by the respondent no. 3, the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand to the petitioner, by which the petitioner was required to get himself examined by the State Medical Board.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶10

record.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as a teacher for the last 30 years; he is at the verge of retirement; due to work being done in harsh climate in remote areas, the petitioner has developed Bronchitis and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); but, this disease has never affected his teaching capabilities; On 02.01.2025, the petitioner visited All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Psychiatry OPD and the doctor opined that “reports no psychiatric issues”. It is also the case of the petitioner that he also appeared before the State Medical Board, who examined him on 27.06.2024 and opined that it is a chronic case of COPD Bronchial Asthma BPH. According to the petitioner, now some interested groups are trying to give colour to the physical condition of the petitioner as mental health issues and he has been directed to be examined by the

¶12

¶13

State Medical Board by the impugned communication dated 02.11.2024, without any reason.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in the Department for the last 30 year; he was a patient of Bronchitis and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), but still he is continuously imparting education to the best of his ability; he was discriminated by the school authorities and now the school authorities are pressuring him to undergo this medical examination, which is unwarranted. He would submit that the Education Department should have no say in the medical examination of the petitioner; the petitioner would produce himself before the State Medical Board, if this Court so considers and the petitioner may still be given liberty to challenge any finding that may come against him, at any point of time.

¶15

Learned State Counsel would submit that after the behaviour of the petitioner was observed, which was quite irrational and weird, he was required to undergo medical examination by the State Medical Board.

¶16

Annexure 3 is a document of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh. It has not given any kind of psychiatry clearance to the petitioner. It records as Sr. No. 3 that according to the petitioner there is no psychiatric issues. This document itself reveals that the petitioner wanted psychiatric clearance regarding ongoing legal disputes at work place. It has not been disclosed by the petitioner as to what legal dispute he was undergoing at his work place, which required psychiatric clearance?

¶17

¶18

Annexure No. 1 is a communication dated 02.12.2024, by which the petitioner was required to get himself examined by the State Medical Board. It gives history of it. According to it, the respondent no. 4, the Chief Education Officer, had recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The Screening Committee for compulsory retirement convened its meeting on 27.11.2024 and recommended for examination of the petitioner by the State Medical Board. Accordingly, the petitioner has been directed by the impugned communication to get himself medically examined by the State Medical Board.

¶19

This Court does not see any reason to make any interference. The petitioner may or may not have any dispute in his department for one reason or another. But, in the instant matter, the Screening Committee for compulsory retirement did not act on their own. Instead, they required the petitioner to get himself medically examined by the State Medical Board. This procedure may be termed as fair.

¶20

This Court has no doubt that the State Medical Board will conduct the medical examination of the petitioner with standard protocol.

¶21

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.03.2025

¶23

Avneet/

Girish Kumar Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Kumar Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Singh Thapa Vs Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

Haseeb Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vakil Vs State of Uttarakhand

Diksha Krishna Upreti Vs State of Uttarakhand

Savadhan Singh and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand