POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

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.

Latest Legal News