Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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