Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Roshi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application for si-rpf position. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. medical examinations and fitness declarations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. counsel argues against arbitrary rejection. (Para 12 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court seeks clarification via medical records. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. court orders independent examination. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. final decision on independent examination results. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. petition disposed with directions. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to immediately/forthwith issue the appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Sub- Inspector/Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as `SI- RPF'). The petitioner further prays that the Medical Examination dated 06.07.2019 of the Railway Hospital, Lucknow be ignored /quashed in view of the subsequent medical re-examination dated 15.11.2019, 26.11.2019 and 17.12.2020 conducted by the Railways itself.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in February, 2018, the recruitment for the post of SI/RPF was centrally advertised by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India by way of
Repeated confirmations of medical fitness from multiple boards supersede initial unfitness declarations, emphasizing fair procedural standards in recruitment.
Procedural compliance is essential in appeals concerning fitness for employment; incomplete submissions may lead to rejection.
Point of law: No good reason to discard joint opinion by three eye specialists merely because other eye-specialists on civilian side had given a different opinion to effect that there was no defect i....
The decisions of a Review Medical Board in recruitment processes are final and can only be challenged under exceptional circumstances, such as procedural violations or malafides.
Discrepancies in medical reports are not grounds to overturn specialist evaluations in recruitment processes; standard fitness criteria for armed services are stricter than for civilian roles.
Medical examination standards for recruitment in police forces are stricter than civilian roles, and the findings of specialist medical boards must be upheld unless glaring inconsistencies are presen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
