Uttarakhand High Court
Girish Kumar Goswami vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 March, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 283 of 2025
Girish Kumar Goswami ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the notice dated 02.11.2024 issued by the respondent no. 3, the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand to the petitioner, by which the petitioner was required to get himself examined by the State Medical Board.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as a teacher for the last 30 years; he is at the verge of retirement; due to work being done in harsh climate in remote areas, the petitioner has developed Bronchitis and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); but, this disease has never affected his teaching capabilities; On 02.01.2025, the petitioner visited All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Psychiatry OPD and the doctor opined that "reports no psychiatric issues". It is also the case of the petitioner that he also appeared before the State Medical Board, who examined him on 27.06.2024 and opined that it is a chronic case of COPD Bronchial Asthma BPH. According to the petitioner, now some interested groups are trying to give colour to the physical condition of the petitioner as mental health issues and he has been directed to be examined by the 2 State Medical Board by the impugned communication dated 02.11.2024, without any reason.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in the Department for the last 30 year; he was a patient of Bronchitis and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), but still he is continuously imparting education to the best of his ability; he was discriminated by the school authorities and now the school authorities are pressuring him to undergo this medical examination, which is unwarranted. He would submit that the Education Department should have no say in the medical examination of the petitioner; the petitioner would produce himself before the State Medical Board, if this Court so considers and the petitioner may still be given liberty to challenge any finding that may come against him, at any point of time.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that after the behaviour of the petitioner was observed, which was quite irrational and weird, he was required to undergo medical examination by the State Medical Board.
6. Annexure 3 is a document of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh. It has not given any kind of psychiatry clearance to the petitioner. It records as Sr. No. 3 that according to the petitioner there is no psychiatric issues. This document itself reveals that the petitioner wanted psychiatric clearance regarding ongoing legal disputes at work place. It has not been disclosed by the petitioner as to what legal dispute he was undergoing at his work place, which required psychiatric clearance? 3
7. Annexure No. 1 is a communication dated 02.12.2024, by which the petitioner was required to get himself examined by the State Medical Board. It gives history of it. According to it, the respondent no. 4, the Chief Education Officer, had recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The Screening Committee for compulsory retirement convened its meeting on 27.11.2024 and recommended for examination of the petitioner by the State Medical Board. Accordingly, the petitioner has been directed by the impugned communication to get himself medically examined by the State Medical Board.
8. This Court does not see any reason to make any interference. The petitioner may or may not have any dispute in his department for one reason or another. But, in the instant matter, the Screening Committee for compulsory retirement did not act on their own. Instead, they required the petitioner to get himself medically examined by the State Medical Board. This procedure may be termed as fair.
9. This Court has no doubt that the State Medical Board will conduct the medical examination of the petitioner with standard protocol.
10. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.03.2025 Avneet/