Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Vinod Kumar vs Uoi And Ors on 19 April, 2023

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

                          $~57
                          *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +        W.P.(C) 17656/2022
                                   VINOD KUMAR                                          .... Petitioner
                                                       Through:     Mr. Krishna Kumar Mishra, Adv.
                                                                    with petitioner in person.

                                              versus

                                   UOI AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                                                       Through:     Mr. Naginder Benipal, Sr. Panel
                                                                    Counsel for UOI.

                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
                                                       ORDER

% 19.04.2023 CM APPL. 18656/2023 This is an application filed by the applicant / review petitioner seeking 10 days delay in filing the review petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 10 days is condoned. Review Petition is taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated February 27, 2023 whereby we have rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said judgment we have held as under:

"5. Mr. Bimal Kumar Berera, learned counsel for the petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date:25.04.2023 15:50:02 during his submission draws our attention to page 99 of the petition, which is the initial Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Authority, wherein the petitioner has been diagnosed as PPRP (Post Polio Residual Paralysis) with Kyphoscoliosis D.L. Spine, and certified him with 70% disability. The Medical Department of the Railways, which examined the petitioner was of the following view:-

"Unfit as physically handicapped quota due to mismatch between clinical findings and disability certificate submitted by the Candidate."

6. It is thereafter, that the petitioner got himself examined by a Medical Authority situated in Hissar on July 29, 2015 / August 05, 2015 and submitted the second certificate, which states as under:-

"Kyphoscoliosis D.L. Spine at 30% with Spondylitis Pulmonary Dysfunction at 50%.

7. According to Mr. Berera, even the second certificate signifies the disability of the petitioner and his candidature could not have been rejected because the Medical Board found him "Medically Unfit for all the categories". He has also drawn our attention to the appeal made by the petitioner against the first Medical Board, which was rejected on the ground that the same is time barred. Be that as it may, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Berera, for the reason that the petitioner had submitted two different disability certificates giving two different results.

8. In view of the discrepancy found in the medical certificate and the clinical examination of the petitioner, the conclusion of the Medical Board declaring him unfit, cannot be faulted."

2. It is contended by the petitioner who appears in person that the request for Appellate Board made by the petitioner was treated as barred by time. That apart, he submits that the second medical certificate submitted by him has not been examined by the Medical Board. What is important is that the Medical Board which was constituted has found the petitioner unfit because of the mismatch between clinical examination of the petitioner and the certificate issued to him showing disability of 70%.

3. Though the conclusion of the Tribunal which was reiterated by us is appropriate, Mr. Naginder Benipal, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents states, he has instructions to state that the petitioner can be referred to the Appellate / Second Medical board.

4. If that be so, in view of the submission made by Mr. Benipal on instructions before this Court today, we dispose of the review petition directing the petitioner to make a representation for referring him to the Appellate / Second Medical Board and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall act on the same, keeping in view the submission of Mr. Benipal and then proceed in accordance with law.

5. Review Petition is closed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J APRIL 19, 2023/jg Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JYOTIRMOY GHOSH DASTIDAR Signing Date:25.04.2023 15:50:02