CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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