No Offence of Money Laundering When Scheduled Offence Not Committed: Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge in Money Laundering Case Finality of Resolved Land Compensation Claims In Land Acquisition Cannot Be Undone Based on Policy Changes: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Conspiracy Charges in Burail Jail Break Case, Citing Key Witnesses Turning Hostile Fictional Cause of Action Cannot Circumvent Limitation Law; Plaint Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court Judicial Scrutiny Of Interest Rates Is Barred By Law; It Is The Reserve Bank's Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court IBC | High Court Interference In CIRP Proceedings Is Unwarranted Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Recommendations of the Single Member Committee must align with BCCI Constitution to avoid governance conflicts in cricket administration: Supreme Court Excessive Interference Undermines Efficiency And Independence Of Arbitral Proceedings: Supreme Court Awareness of Award's Filing Triggers Limitation, Not Formal Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Arbitration Awards Contributions To Construction Do Not Confer Exclusive Title Unless Backed By Proof Of Consent Or Separate Agreement: Calcutta High Court Affirms Equal Ownership In Joint Property Seniority Must Prevail in Teacher Transfers: Kerala High Court Overrules Administrative Tribunal's Orders" High Court Cannot Condon Delay Beyond 90 Days in UAPA Bail Appeals: Punjab & Haryana High Court Offences Under Section 138 of the NI Act Are Compensatory in Nature and Can Be Resolved at Any Stage: Madras High Court Fairness and Transparency in Property Distribution: Delhi High Court Resolves Family Dispute Pre-EMI Deductions Without Adherence to RBI Guidelines Not Enforceable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unilateral Claims Cannot Substitute Proof: Calcutta High Court Rules in Insurance Dispute Bank Guarantees Are Autonomous Contracts, Cannot Be Obstructed by External Claims: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Additional Evidence Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in a Party’s Case: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Actress Shilpa Raj Kundra: Finds No Intent or Mens Rea to Violate SC/ST Act"

Regulations Not Followed in Declaring Candidate Unfit' Orders Fresh Medical Review: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has ordered the reconstitution of a Review Medical Board to reassess Ajay Budaniya, who was previously declared unfit due to hypertension and tachycardia. The court found that the initial examination did not comply with mandated regulations and guidelines, prompting the need for a fresh evaluation. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring adherence to procedural norms in medical evaluations.

Ajay Budaniya filed a petition challenging the Review Medical Examination Report dated December 21, 2023, which declared him unfit based on his hypertension and tachycardia conditions. Represented by his counsel, Budaniya argued that the examination failed to follow the required regulations, which necessitate hospitalization for observation before issuing a final opinion.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the case, noting significant procedural lapses in the initial review process. The court highlighted, "As per the regulations/guidelines, before a final opinion is given by the Review Medical Board, the candidate should have been hospitalized for observation. It is a conceded case that the said regulations/guidelines were not followed in this case."

The court set aside the Review Medical Board's report and directed the respondents to constitute a new Review Medical Board. The newly constituted board is instructed to re-examine Budaniya in accordance with the regulations and guidelines dated May 31, 2021. The court further directed that the new board be formed within two weeks and that Budaniya be given at least four days' advance notice prior to the examination.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao stated, "The report of the Review Medical Board dated December 21, 2023, is set aside. The respondents are directed to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board which shall examine the petitioner inter alia in accordance with the regulations/guidelines."

The Delhi High Court's decision to order a fresh medical evaluation for Ajay Budaniya emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in medical fitness assessments. By mandating a new review, the court ensures that candidates' health evaluations are conducted fairly and in line with established guidelines, thereby protecting their rights and upholding the integrity of the examination process.

Date of Decision: January 19, 2024

 Ajay Budaniya vs. Union of India & Ors.

Similar News