2023:PHHC:047601-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

LPA No. 1861 of 2019 (O&M)

Reserved on: 23.03.2023

Date of Decision: 29 .03.2023

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

. . . . Appellants

Vs.

BALRAJ

. . . . Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO.

HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

Present: -

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate,

for the respondent.

****

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

In this Letter’s Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the

judgment dt.12.09.2019 passed in CWP-25571-2019.

The background facts

The respondent-Balraj had participated in the selection process

for post of Sailor in the Indian Navy at New Delhi, and had qualified in the

written examination conducted on 27.02.2019 by the appellants. He also

qualified in the physical fitness examination, and qualified for the interview

conducted by appellant No.3 at New Delhi.

However, in a medical examination conducted by the appellants,

he was declared unfit and referred to the Review Medical Board for medical

examination.

The Review Medical Board declared the respondent unfit on

account of “Left Ear Audio Logical Fualuation” vide Annexure P-3 dt.

10.04.2019.

SURESH KUMAR

2023.04.01 13:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA No. 1861 of 2019 (O&M)

Page 2 of 7

2023:PHHC:047601-DB

The respondent then got himself examined from the PGIMER,

Chandigarh and also from the PGIMS, Rohtak for treatment of the said

disease, but both of them certified that the respondent was not suffering from

the said disease as per Annexure P-4 medical reports issued by them.

The respondent then filed CWP-25571-2019 to quash the

decision of the appellants by which he had been declared medically unfit by

them vide Annexure P-3 dt.10.04.2019, having regard to the medical reports

obtained from the respondent PGIMER, Chandigarh and from the PGIMS,

Rohtak. He also sought a direction to the appellants to conduct re-medical

examination of the respondent in view of Annexure P-4 and to consider the

respondent for selection as an Airmen.

By order dt.12.09.2019, the learned Single Judge allowed the

Writ Petition observing that there were conflicting medical reports and so the

appellants should conduct a fresh medical examination on the respondent by

constituting a medical board of experts at any hospital of their choice,

preferable at Army Research and Referral Hospital, New Delhi within three

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order.

Challenging the same, this Appeal is filed.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned

Single Judge had erred in granting relief to the respondent in the Writ Petition.

According to the counsel for the appellants, the medical record of a Civilian

authority/hospital cannot be taken into consideration when the respondent had

been medically examined twice by different Medical Officers and found unfit

on both occasions.

SURESH KUMAR

2023.04.01 13:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

LPA No. 1861 of 2019 (O&M)

Page 3 of 7

2023:PHHC:047601-DB

Counsel for the appellants sought to rely on Annexure A-2 which

is said to be another review medical report issued by a medical board of the

base hospital after examining the respondent on 02.05.2019 mentioning that

the respondent is suffering from “Chronic Otitis Media (Lt.) Effects Of ”.

No reason is assigned by the appellants as to why this document

was not produced before the learned Single Judge because this document was

available with the appellants when the CWP-25571-2019 was decided on

12.09.2019.

Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision rendered by this

Court on 03.12.2019 in LPA-632-2018 titled as Union of India and Another

Vs. Bhagat Singh and Others where in a similar situation akin to the instant

case, a Division Bench of