Naresh Kumar vs Union Of India
2010 Latest Caselaw 3261 Del

 *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of decision: 14th July, 2010

 +                WP (C) No.4592/2010 & CM No.9083/2010


      NARESH KUMAR                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through Ms. Rekha Palli, Adv. with Ms. Punam Singh,
                                   Adv. & Ms. Amrita Prakash, Adv.


                  versus


      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Madan Gera, Adv. with Mr. Ashok Singh, Adv. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the No Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. The present petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of

Constable (Bigular) in September-October, 2009. He is stated to have

succeeded in the physical test, trade test and the written test which was

conducted during the recruitment process. However, the petitioner was

declared medically unfit by an order passed on 9th March, 2010 on the

ground that his X-Ray depicted Bilateral Apical Reticulonodular Opacity also

in mid lung zone. Placing reliance on his medical examination by the

Department of Medicine in the Safdarjung Hospital. The petitioner made a

prayer to the respondents for conduct of a review medical board.

WP (C) No.4592/2010 Page No.1

2. The petitioner's request has been rejected by the impugned order

dated 12th April, 2010 by the respondents on the sole ground that the

application for the review medical board was belated.

3. Having regard to the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, we are of

the view that interests of justice merit that the petitioner's prayer for review

medical board deserves to be considered on merits and ought not to be

rejected on the sole ground that the same had been received belatedly. The

petitioner has disputed the delay. However, for reasons of expediency and in

the interest of justice, we are not going into the rival contentions on this

issue.

4. Accordingly, we issue a direction to the respondents to consider the

petition dated 18th March, 2010 of the petitioner making a prayer for a review

medical board on merits and pass an order thereon within a period of six

weeks. Further action shall be taken by the respondents in accordance with

the decision which is taken thereon.

5. A request is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that having

regard to the fact that the petitioner is located in a small village in district

Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, the order which is passed by the respondents on the

petitioner's prayer for a review medical board, be communicated upon her

office to enable her to inform the petitioner. This request is reasonable and

is accepted.

6. The respondents are directed to communicate the order which is

passed on the petitioner's request for review medical board to the office of

the learned counsel at the address disclosed in the present petition.

WP (C) No.4592/2010 Page No.2 This writ petition and application are allowed in the above terms.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.

                               GITA MITTAL, J



                               J.R. MIDHA, J
 JULY 13, 2010
 aa




WP (C) No.4592/2010                           Page No.3