Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Amit Get - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11656 of 2021
Decided On : 11-10-2021
The court upheld the Tribunal's directive for an independent medical examination, emphasizing due process and the need for impartial assessment in disability cases.
Headnote:(A) Regulations Relating To Physical Examinations of the Candidates qua Civil Service Examination 2018 - Regulation 7(a)(xiii) - Writ petition against Tribunal's order for medical examination - The Tribunal ordered the establishment of an Appellate Medical Board for fresh examination, which the petitioner argued sets a wrong precedent. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that discretion exercised by the Tribunal regarding fairness and due process is to be respected unless compelling reasons to interfere are demonstrated. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The respondent sought to challenge the findings of the Medical Board regarding his disability and requested a fresh examination, which the Tribunal directed. The petitioner failed to comply with this order, leading to the current writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner’s challenge and upheld the Tribunal's direction for a fresh examination by a different medical board.
Issues: Whether the directions issued by the Tribunal were appropriate and justified given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that the Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure impartiality and strengthen the credibility of the medical examination process, thereby not interfering with the Tribunal's discretion.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal's prior orders and compliance issues (Para 2) |
| 2. court's analysis on the tribunal’s direction validity (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding the formation of the appellate medical board (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final order on the writ petition (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)
[PHYSICAL COURT HEARING]
CM Nos. 36069/2021 and 36038/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11656/2021 & CM No. 36039/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation of the order dated 14.09.2021]
2. This writ petition is directed against order dated 14.09.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in M.A No. 2585/2021.
2.1. To be noted, the record shows that, the respondent i.e., Amit Get, had filed an action in the Tribunal, which was numbered as O.A. No.3688/2019.
2.2. The respondent had approached the Tribunal, seeking relief, to the effect, that, the findings of the Medical Board be set aside, and that, the respondent should be examined afresh qua the issue concerning his disability.
2.3. The Tribunal, vide order dated 28.10.2020, had allowed the aforementioned O.A., and directed that a fresh medical examination of the respondent should be undertaken.
2.4. Concededly, the petitioner did not comply with the directions issued qua order date 28.10.2020, which led to a contempt petition being filed by the respondent i.e., Contempt Petition No.192/2021.
2.5. The Tribunal, instead of initiating the contempt proceedings against the petitioner, converted the said proceedings into execution proceedings, vide order dated 06.08.2021, and had the contempt petition numbered as, a miscellaneous application (M.A.).
3. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal has issued the following operative directions:
"5. In the facts and circumstances and in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, we direct the DoPT to constitute an Appellate Medical Board, comprising specialised doctors, in respect of the petitioner from any of the hospital (other than AIIMS) as mentioned in Paragraph No.2 of the notification dated 22.01.2018, within a period of five working days from today."
3.1. The petitioner `has approached this Court, on the ground that, the directions issued by the Tribunal, via the impugned order, sets a wrong precedent.
3.2. To be noted, it is also the petitioner's grievance, which is articulated by Mr. Manish Mohan as well, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that, while issuing the operative directions, the Tribunal had taken recourse to an order of this Court dated 16.04.2019, passed in an application, preferred in W.P.(C.) 3339/2019, titled Atheeth Sanjeevan vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors., which was not pari materia with the facts obtaining in the instant case.
3.3. According to Mr. Mohan, in Atheeth Sanjeevan's case, the learned single judge had excluded the All India Institute of Medical Sciences[in short, "AIIMS"] from the process of medical examination of the concerned petitioner, on the ground that, the doctor who had examined the petitioner initially, was also a member of the Appellate Medical Board.
3.4 Mr. Mohan submits, no such situation arises in the instant case.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Behera, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent, has, inter alia, relied upon Regulation 7(a)(xiii) of the Regulations Relating To Physical Examinations of the Candidates qua Civil Service Examination 2018 [in short "Regulations"], issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), vide notification dated 07.02.2018, to contend that, if an appeal is preferred by an aggrieved candidate, then, the appeal is required to be referred to the Appellate Medical/Specialized Disability Medical Board of a designated hospital, other than the one, which previously examined the concerned candidate.
4.1. It is Mr. Behera's contention that, the record would show that the respondent was
