MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Judiciary Cannot Substitute Medical Expertise – Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Medical Unfitness in ITBP Recruitment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the medical unfitness declaration in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Animal Transport) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). Justice Jagmohan Bansal, while delivering the judgment on November 20, 2023, in the case of Sonu Vs. Union of India and Others (CWP-3903-2016), emphasized the court’s limitation in substituting the opinions of medical experts.

The petitioner, Sonu, was declared medically unfit for the recruitment due to ‘hypertension with mild mitral regurgitation’, a decision he challenged as being wrongful. Despite re-examinations, including one ordered by the High Court at PGIMER, the medical boards consistently found the petitioner to suffer from Stage-I Hypertension.

Justice Bansal, in his judgment, stressed the primacy of expert medical opinion in such matters, stating, “This Court cannot substitute opinion of Doctors who are experts in their subjects.” The judgment also referred to a similar case (LPA No.871 of 2022 titled ‘Sumit Vs. Union of India’), reinforcing the finality of the medical board’s opinion in recruitment processes.

The court dismissed the petition, underscoring the lack of judicial expertise to overrule or reassess the findings of medical professionals. This decision marks a significant precedent in cases involving the medical fitness of candidates in defense and paramilitary forces, where physical and medical standards are of paramount importance.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

SONU VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

 

Similar News