Read Order: Lalit v. Union of India and Others
Chandigarh, January 14, 2022: While dealing with an appeal in a case wherein the appellant was aggrieved by the medical certificate which declared him unfit for selection, the Punjab and Haryana High did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order owing to the fact that the respondents agreed before the Court to look into reports prepared by medical experts of two Government institutions declaring the appellant fit. The respondents also agreed to reconsider its earlier decision if the reports so warranted.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli was hearing an Appeal which was filed by the appellant against the dismissal of his writ petition and review application. The writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the medical unfitness certificate which was issued by the Medical Board of the respondents and the order passed by the Appeal Medical Board of the Central Airmen Selection Board, New Delhi (second respondent).
The appellant’s counsel submitted that subsequent to the decision of the writ petition, the medical expert of the Cardiology Department of PGIMS, Rohtak, issued a medical certificate stating that the appellant did not have cardiac symptoms; his CVS examination was normal; and that his ECG did not show any evidence of any disease.
The Counsel also submitted that previously also, PGIMS Rohtak and another government institution gave a clean chit to the appellant but the same was not brought to the notice of or considered by the Appeal Medical Board of the second respondent. He requested the respondent authorities to look into the aforesaid reports and re-consider their decision if it so warranted.
The respondents’ counsel conceded to this request and submitted that it was willing to look into the aforesaid reports and decide on the case in accordance with the governing Rules. The appellant also agreed to be bound by the decision of the Appeal Medical Board, if taken after considering the medical reports prepared by the above-mentioned hospitals.
The Court thus found that the order of the Single Judge bench did not call for an interference. The statements of both counsels were taken on record and the appeal was disposed of in these terms