Punjab-Haryana High Court
Janak Lather vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082129
CWP-19866-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
231 CWP-19866-2020
Date of decision: 03.07.2024
JANAK LATHER ....PETITIONER
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents-Union of India.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of report dated 05.02.2020
(Annexure P-5) of the respondents whereby he was found medically unfit for the
post of SAILOR (AA) in Indian Navy.
2. The petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement applied for the post of
SAILOR (AA) in Indian Navy. He was issued an admit card and thereafter he
appeared for written test as well as physical and medical test.
3. The petitioner was subjected to enrolment medical examination
wherein vide result dated 05.02.2020 was declared unfit due to ICTEROS. He
appeared before the Appeal Medical Board which vide report dated 25.02.2020
declared him unfit on the same ground.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not
properly medically re-examined by the respondents. He got himself examined
from Civil Hospital, Jind and Narula Diagnostic Centre (P) Ltd. and was found
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082129
fit, thus, respondent has wrongly rejected his candidature. He deserves to be
examined by Medical Board constituted by PGIMER, Chandigarh. In support of
his contention, he relies upon order dated 22.07.2020 in "CWP-10274-2020
"Neeraj Mor Vs. Union f India and others" and judgment dated 05.01.2022 of
Division Bench of this Court in "Lalit Vs. Union of India and others, LPA-
1240-2021".
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner was twice subjected to medical condition and same deficiency was
found. The respondents are bound by its instructions and as per instructions, a
candidate cannot seek further review/appeal. The petitioner was declared
medically unfit in 2020. The Government has introduced scheme of Agniveer
Navy w.e.f. 2021, thus, the petitioner at this belated stage cannot be considered.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel fro the parties and
perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it comes out that the petitioner was
subjected to Enrolment Medical Examination and Appeal Medical Examination.
In both the medical examinations, he was declared unfit on account of
ICTEROS. He has applied for a post in Armed Forces where parameters and
standards of medical fitness are higher than civil posts. This Court cannot
substitute opinions of experts.
8. A Division Bench of this Court while adverting with similar issue
in LPA No.871 of 2022 (O&M) titled as Sumit Vs. Union of India decided on
24.04.2023 has held that once the medical experts have examined and re-
examined the appellant, this Court is not required to sit over the same and
adjudicate upon the correctness of the opinion(s) expressed by the Medical
Experts especially when this Court does not have expertise to decide as to
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082129
whether the opinion(s) of the expert are right or wrong. The relevant extracts of
the judgment read as:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no
illegality or infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge. The appellant has been examined twice
firstly by the Recruitment Medical Board and thereafter by the
Appeal Medical Board which has also obtained opinion from the
Command Hospital, Eastern Command, Kolkata and thereafter
taken a decision in the matter. All medical experts have found the
blood pressure and other parameters not to be in consonance with
those prescribed.
We are also in agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned
Single Judge to the effect that once the medical experts have
examined and re-examined the appellant's case thoroughly, this
Court is not required to sit over the same and adjudicate upon the
correctness of the opinion(s) expressed by the Medical Experts
especially when this Court does not have the expertise to decide as
to whether the opinion(s) of the Medical Experts are right or
wrong. The process of medical examination cannot be converted
into an endless process and therefore, finality to the opinion of the
Appellate Medical Board has rightly been prescribed.
As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant
on the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 635
of 2018 is concerned, it is evident that the said appeal was decided
on the conjoint consensus statement made by the parties and
therefore, it was an order passed on the basis of the consent given
by the parties and does not form any binding precedent. In that
case as the matter had been allowed by the learned Single Judge
taking into account the medical reports of an hospital, which was
not part of the medical set up of the respondents, and inspite of the
negative reports being given by the Recruitment Medical Board as
well as the Appeal Medical Board and therefore, the Union of India
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082129
had made a statement that they will get further examination done
from the Army Hospital (Research & Referral) New Delhi, a
defence hospital and not a private one, to which the appellant
therein had agreed and on the basis of the statements made by the
parties with consent, the appeal was disposed of. In such
circumstances, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
appellant on the order passed in LPA No. 635 of 2018 is
misconceived. In the instant case, there is concurrent opinion given
by the Medical Experts of the Recruitment Medical Board as well
as the Appeal Medical Board that the appellant is unfit for
appointment in Indian Air Force."
9. Apart from the aforesaid fact, it needs to be considered that
petitioner applied for the post in 2019. All the selected candidates joined in 2020
and they completed their training in 2022. The respondent has introduced
'Agnipath Scheme' and earlier schemes of appointment have been scrapped.
Thus, direction to respondent to appoint petitioner after 5 years, especially when
he had applied for a post in an organization where age is an important factor,
would not be just and fair.
10. In view of above discussion and findings as well as judgment of this
Court in Sumit (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that present
petition sans merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
03.07.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
