"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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