Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High 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