Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shivam Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 4688 Del

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 4688 Del
Judgement Date : 1 September, 2017

Delhi High Court
Shivam Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 September, 2017
19
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+            W.P.(C) 7704/2017 & CM 31850/2017

                                     Date of decision: 1st September, 2017

      SHIVAM YADAV                               ..... Petitioner
                  Through:            Mr.S.S.Pandey and Mr.H.S.Tiwari,
                                      Advs.

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                        ..... Respondents
                    Through: Through: Mr.Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel
                    counsel along with Flt. Lt. G.Paliwal and SGT
                    D.Srivastava
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

      SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was declared as medically unfit by the Medical

Board on 21st July, 2016 at Air Force Hospital, Kalaikunda,

Kharagpur, West Bengal (4AFH) on the ground that he was unable

to squat.

2. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed an appeal and was

examined by the Appellate Medical Board at SMC, Air Force

Station, Bagdogra, West Bengal on 10th August, 2016. The

petitioner claims that he was referred to a Specialist and was

WP(C) 7704/2017 Page 1 examined at 158 Base Hospital, Bengdubi, West Bengal. The

petitioner was again declared as unfit on the ground that he was

unable to squat.

3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition after nearly

one year on 31st August, 2017. In this writ petition, allegations

have been made against the Specialist Doctor who had examined

the petitioner in the Appellate Medical Board proceedings. The

petitioner claims that in the physical fitness test he was required to

squat 20 times within the stipulated time. The petitioner, it is

asserted was examined at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 22nd

July, 2017, and no abnormality has been recorded. Reliance is

placed on OPD card of Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS Rohtak dated 17th

June, 2017, observations of Dr. Chandeep Singh of Medanta

Hospital dated 8th July, 2017, etc.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that there is no

delay and laches. He has referred to the communication dated 3rd

August, 2017 in response to the representation dated 19 th June,

2017.

5. These reports mentioned in paragraph 3 above, we notice,

WP(C) 7704/2017 Page 2 begin from June, 2017, nearly ten months after the petitioner was

declared as unfit on account of inability to squat by the Appellate

Medical Board, who had examined the petitioner in August, 2016.

6. Reply by the respondents vide letter dated 3rd August, 2017

to the representation made by the petitioner on 19th June, 2017

would not explain the delay from August, 2016 till the

representation dated 19th June, 2017 was made.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents who appears on an

advance notice submits that the petitioner did not even wait for

completion of the Medical Board proceedings in August, 2016. The

Appellate Medical Board had declared the petitioner as unfit in

absentia. This indicates and reflects that the petitioner was unable to

squat. Upon selection, the first lot of the selectee had joined training

in the month of January, 2017 and second lot had joined training in

the month of July, 2017. Fresh recruitment process for the year

2017 is already in progress.

8. In the present case, principle of delay and laches would

apply. The recruitment process and selection were completed with

the selectee joining training. The time gap of nearly one year

WP(C) 7704/2017 Page 3 indicates that the physical deficiency recorded in the two medical

examinations was correct.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

would like to apply again for selection to the Air Force. He submits

that the petitioner apprehends that he would be denied admit card,

because earlier he was declared as medically unfit. Learned counsel

for the respondents submits that the application form does require

the applicant to mention and state whether the said applicant was

declared medically unfit on an earlier occasion, albeit this would

not be a ground not to issue admit card. Therefore the petitioner can

apply and if he qualifies, he would be examined by the Medical

Board in accordance with law.

10. In view of the statement, the writ petition is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

                                             SANJIV KHANNA, J


                                             NAVIN CHAWLA, J

SEPTEMBER 01, 2017
RN




WP(C) 7704/2017                                                  Page 4
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter