Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance 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

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