SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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