Delhi High Court - Orders
Sachin Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 December, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10144/2020
SACHIN KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ajit Kakkar, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Avnish Singh, Advocate with
Doctor Kaushik and Mr.Ram Kumar,
Legal Officer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 21.12.2020 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 10th December, 2020.
2. The counsel for the respondents Indian Navy has yesterday emailed to us certain documents, being, (a) the Primary Medical Examination Report and the Review Certificate of the petitioner, both dated 7th November, 2019;
(b) NO (Spl) 01/2008 'Medical Standards - Officers and Sailors (MH/0502/VIII)'; (c) the letter dated 9th May, 2019 of the Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy) with respect to the amendment to the visual standards of Sailors; and, (d) the advertisement titled 'The Indian Navy invites online applications from unmarried male candidates for enrolment as sailors for Artificer Apprentice (AA) & Senior Secondary Recruit (SSR) - February, 2020 batch for course commencing February, 2020'. The Surgeon Commander and Deputy Director, Legal of the respondents Indian Navy are present.
3. The Deputy Director, Legal has informed that the recruitment process W.P.(C) 10144/2020 Page 1 of 3 of the examination in which the petitioner had participated, got over in February, 2020 and the candidates selected for SSR and MR Hygienist have also already completed their training.
4. The counsel for the petitioner states that the training commenced only in October, 2020 and the petition was filed in August, 2020.
5. However, the fact remains that the petition, even if was filed in August, 2020, was got listed and came up first before us only on 10 th December, 2020. Once the recruitment got over much prior to the date of the filing of the petition, the delay on the part of the petitioner, from 22nd November, 2019, when the Appeal Medical Examination of the petitioner was conducted and in which also the petitioner was found unfit and informed so, even till August, 2020, as observed in the last order, is fatal and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. The counsel for the petitioner states that successive batches start every three months and once the petition is allowed, the petitioner can join in the next batch of training commencing from February, 2021.
7. The Deputy Director, Legal of the respondents Indian Navy states that the batch, which will be starting in February, 2021 will not be pursuant to the examination in which the petitioner had participated and will be from a different examination.
8. The Surgeon Commander, also present, has informed us that the petitioner, in the Appeal Medical Examination on 22nd November, 2019, was examined by an expert ophthalmologist who found the vision of the petitioner to not be within the prescribed parameters.
9. The counsel for the respondents Indian Navy has also drawn our attention to the letter dated 9th May, 2019 of the Integrated Headquarters, W.P.(C) 10144/2020 Page 2 of 3 Ministry of Defence (Navy) with respect to the amendment to the visual standards of Sailors and wherefrom it is found that the vision of the petitioner assessed by the expert ophthalmologist as 6/9 in both eyes, is not as per the medical standards prescribed in the said letter.
10. We have already, in Priti Yadav v. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 951, Sharvan Kumar Rai v. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Del 924, Nishant Kumar Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1486/2020, Jonu Tiwari Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1524/2020, Vani Viswanathan Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1678/2020, Akash Sharma Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2069/2020, held that it is the opinion of the medical experts of the respondents and not of the doctors of other hospitals, even of government hospitals, which has to prevail, unless some doubt is created with respect to the opinion rendered by the medical experts of the respondents or any error in the conduct of medical examination is shown. No such case is made out in the present case.
11. The counsel for the petitioner states that adjournment be given to him to cite case law that if the decision of the Medical Board is reversed by the court, the candidate is made to join in the next batch.
12. No ground for granting adjournment is made out since, as aforesaid, the petition is found to be suffering from delay and latches and also, no error is found in the medical findings of the respondents Indian Navy.
13. The petition is dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
DECEMBER 21, 2020/SU..
W.P.(C) 10144/2020 Page 3 of 3