Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Davinder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 23 February, 2017

Author: Rajiv Narain Raina

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

                                            1
CWP No.3698 of 2017




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                            Date of decision: 23.02.2017

                                            CWP No.3698 of 2017

Davinder Singh                                                ...Petitioner

                                      Vs.

Union of India & others                                       ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:        Mr.Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate,
                for the petitioner.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL)

The candidature of the petitioner for the post of Technical Soldier in the Indian Army has been rejected by the Medical Board constituted to medically examine the candidates, for the reason that there is a 'Keloid Right Arm (raised pinkish scar tissue at the site of an injury)'. This means that there is a scar on the right arm, where possibly an old tattoo mark was removed by intervention by way of radiofrequency ablation/laser/plastic surgery etc. The second reason for rejection; and the more serious one is that the doctors found a 'murmur in the heart' of the petitioner. Both these reasons have been determined by Medical Experts in the Indian Army to refuse enrolment and it is not for the Court to sit in the judgment over their medical opinion. The Indian Army may for good and sufficient reason not admit any one in its soldier ranks whose body bears a removed tattoo leaving a noticeably permanent scar, and that too on one arm and there is a murmur in the heart.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2017 01:31:48 ::: 2 CWP No.3698 of 2017 Consequently, I would not entertain this petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the same is ordered to stand dismissed.




23.02.2017                                          [RAJIV NARAIN RAINA]
Vimal                                                      JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes
                Whether Reportable:                      No




                                  2 of 2
               ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2017 01:31:49 :::