‘Decision of armed forces’ doctors on fitness is final’
Updated:
Updated:
High Court rules while declining plea of a Central Armed Police Forces aspirant
Share Article
High Court rules while declining plea of a Central Armed Police Forces aspirant
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that once the doctors of the Armed Forces, who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted.
A Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon noted that private or other government doctors are “unaware of the demands of duties” in which the recruited personnel are required to work in the Forces.
30 Feminist Judgments Of 2020
livelaw.in - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from livelaw.in Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Delhi High Court Allows Allocation Of Medical Seat To National Bravery Award Winner, Order Not To Be Used As Precedent
livelaw.in - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from livelaw.in Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
A Division Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee observed that a High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the power to grant bail in a suitable case. In an application under Article 226, the High Court must be circumspect in exercising its powers [to grant bail]
on the basis of the facts of each case. However, the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power, it observed while granting bail to Arnab Goswami in a habeas corpus petition.
It also concluded that the
other incidents could not be established in the absence of substantive evidence as there were no direct witnesses.
Therefore, the Complaints Committee
Appellant s contentions
According to the appellant, the aforesaid decision was not communicated to her and it was only on 3rd July, 2013 in response to an RTI query that she learnt of the decision.
She filed an appeal but was also not again communicated the result of that appeal. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3/O.P.Verma retired.
She, therefore, filed the writ petition challenging the recommendation of 20th January, 2012 but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.