Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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