Bombay High Court
Vishvanath Balasaheb Nagare vs The Union Of India Thr. Secretary ... on 18 August, 2023
Author: M.W. Chandwani
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M. W. Chandwani
1 916.WP.606-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 606 OF 2022
( Vishvanath Balasaheb Nagare
Vs.
The Union of India, Thr. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North
Block, New Delhi & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. K.S. Motwani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2023 Heard Mr. Motwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Navlani, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The order dated 14.07.2023 directed as under:
"1. The short submission canvassed by Mr. Motwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that while the petitioner was examined by the Review Medical Board, pursuant to the judgment dated 24.08.2021, rendered by a coordinate bench in Writ Petition No.975/2021, the directions issued in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment, are not complied with.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 09:27:11 :::
2 916.WP.606-2022.odt
2. We extract paragraphs 20 and 21 from the judgment supra as under:
"20. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the petitioner be referred to the Medical Board for reviewing the clinical findings by following the Rules stated hereinabove. The petitioner be examined by a specialist in the field i.e. Orthopedic Surgeon and the opinion of the Orthopedic Surgeon be taken into consideration as to whether the petitioner would be unfit for the job for which he had applied or whether the deformity is in the normal range; and if so, the same can be ignored as there are certain deficiencies even as per the Rules which cannot be considered for declaring a candidate unfit because Clause (7) of the Office Memorandum specifies certain minor acceptable defects.
21. Sub-clause (r) of Clause (7) specifies that the report of the Radiologist must be clinically co-related before rejection and any other slight defects, which in the opinion of the Recruiting Medical Officer will not interfere with efficiency of candidate as a soldier in future should be ignored. The rules are supported by a foot-note which specifies that the Recruiting Medical Officer shall fully satisfy himself that the defect, will not in any way affect the efficiency of candidate and the defects should invariable be mentioned in recruitment form. That, in doubtful cases the candidates may be referred to a specialist for examination and opinion which may include X-ray examination or any other special investigation / test /examination".
3. We have perused the report of the review medical examination (Exhibit B). The report makes no reference to the radiological test. While Mr. Navlani informs us that as a fact radio-logical test was conducted, the direction of the High Court was to co- relate the results of the radiological test with the clinical finding, which evidently is not done.
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 09:27:11 :::3 916.WP.606-2022.odt
4. In this situation, we are of the opinion, and Mr. Navlani, learned counsel fairly agrees, that the petitioner can be examined again by the Review Medical Board and a report in conformity with the directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition 975/2021 can be placed on record in this petition, within four weeks.
5. We direct the respondents 1 to 3 to do needful within four weeks and make available the report for our perusal.
6. Stand over to 18th August, 2023."
3. In pursuance to the above, a Pursis has been placed on record dated 10.08.2023 alongwith the report of the Medical Board, which report after taking into consideration, the directions as contained in para 20 and 21 of the Writ Petition No. 975/2021 decided on 24.08.2021, renders an opinion that even considering the Radiological Test, the petitioner has been found unfit.
4. The report of the Review Medical Board indicates, that the petitioner has Right Foot Valgus Deformity at DIP Joint 2nd toe and on the Left Foot a similar Deformity, as a result of which, he would be prevented the proper wearing of combatised footwear which would also impair walking, marching, running or jumping, and therefore, the Review Medical Board has declared him unfit.
5. There is no reason why the report of the Review Medical Board cannot be relied upon. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition.
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 09:27:11 :::4 916.WP.606-2022.odt
6. The Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) SD. Bhimte ::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2023 09:27:11 :::