Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

Single testicle does not make unfit serve in Navy-PB&HR HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:- 23 May,2022

[Union of India v. Neeraj Mor] The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled in [Union of India v. Neeraj Mor] that Single testicle does not make unfit serve in Navy that having a single testicle does not disqualify an individual from service in the Indian Navy.

Therefore, a division bench of the High Court upheld a single-judge order mandating a new medical examination of an Indian Navy applicant who was deemed ineligible for enlistment because he had a single testicle.

The Central government appealed the order, which was heard by a division bench of Justices GS Sandhawalia and Vivek Suri, who found no illegality in the single decision. judge's

"There is nothing in the record to indicate that the same disability would prevent him from serving in the Indian Navy," the court stated.

During the medical examination, the respondent challenged an order issued by both the enrollment medical officer and the classified specialist declaring him unfit for enrollment. The reason for his rejection was that he possessed only one testicle.

A new medical examination of the respondent was ordered to be conducted by constitution of a Medical Board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Command Hospital Hissar, PGIMER Chandigarh, the Army Hospital Research and Referral Institute, or any other institute.

If he was found to be medically fit, he would be given credit for his earlier selection and assigned to training.

The division bench determined that the order declaring him unfit failed to demonstrate why the respondent's genetic defect prevented him from serving in the Indian Navy.

"Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in ordering the re-examination by the Medical Board, and no harm has been done to the Union of India," the court ruled.

Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the Court ordered that the process be concluded within three months of receiving the order.

The appellants were represented by attorney Anil Chawla, while the respondent was represented by attorney Harish Bhardwaj.

Union of India

V/S

Neeraj Mor

Download order

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/23-05-2022-union-of-india-vs-neeraj.pdf"]

Latest Legal News