Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 108131 (ALL)

BALWANT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/18331/2024 · 2025-03-31

Ajit Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44313 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18331 of 2024 Petitioner :- Balwant Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Singh,Lallan Prasad Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Manav Chaurasia Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manav Chaurasia, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that candidature of the petitioner in the review medical has been rejected on the ground that he was not found fit for Cubitus Varus being more than 5 per cent. The petitioner approached this Court with a plea that when the rules prescribed for X-ray to be done in such case, respondents were not justified in carrying out the medical review examination without conducting X-ray report. For this purpose he has referred Clause 7(a), which runs as under: "a) In any cardiac case like valvular defects, ECG/Echocardiogram must be carried out." 3. Learned counsel for the respondents vide order dated 13.12.2024 was directed to obtain instruction in the matter. The order dated 13.12.2024 is reproduced as follows: "It is contended that the medical deficiency which led to the invalidation of the petitioner candidature can be determined only by considering X-ray report. The X-ray report were not placed before the Medical Board. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Manav Chaurasia, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted time to obtain appropriate instructions in the matter. Put up this matter in the list of fresh cases on 19.12.2024. " 4. Pursuant to the above order, instructions have been obtained by learned counsel for the respondents which has been taken on record. As per instructions "Cubitus Varus" is the cause for rejection of the candidate and further instructions are that this rejection is based upon goniometer which is applied for determining the carying angle and cubitus varus and therefore, X-ray is not required, nor mandatory. Further literature regarding above has been placed. Paragraph no.4 of the literature which runs as under: "4. Record the angle from the readout on the measurement plate. Subtract the measurement from 180 degree if your initial readout was 180 degree. For example, if the straight goniometer read 180 degree and it read 170 degree fitted to the patient's elbow then the patient's carrying angle is 180 degree-170 degree=10 degrees." 5. In the considered view of the Court if the 5 per cent of the deformity for which the petitioner has been held unfit to is visible to eyes and the technical tools are applied with the technical details like goniometer it may not be necessary to have an X-ray in a given case in view of what has been prescribed for under the Rules as quoted above. 6. It is true that these rules have been framed for the purposes as guidelines to hold medical examination and review medical examination but at times it may not be necessary to go for X-ray test in the event deformity is much more than 5 per cent, but where it may not be visible to eyes and besides applying these tools like goniometer it would be more appropriate to go for X-ray report to ensure that the petitioner's candidature does not get rejected. 7. In the special facts and circumstances of this case, where the deformity detected is 5 per cent or a little more, it would be appropriate that the X-ray of the hand of the petitioner is also done in the matter and it is on the basis of X-ray report that a final review medical opinion should be obtained afresh. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent no.4 to get the X-ray of the arm of the petitioner in the Cubitus Varus has been found to be 5 per cent and a little above within a period of two weeks of presentation of certified copy of this order and then obtain review medical opinion on the basis of such X-ray report. 9. Rejection of petitioner's candidature shall abide by fresh medical opinion to be obtained as directed above. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad