Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24561 (CHH)

DR. ASHWINI SINGH v. ALL INDIA INSTITURE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,

WPC/3219/2024 · 2025-07-08

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:31524-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3219 of 2024 Dr. Ashwini Singh S/o Shri Yogendra Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 68, Sector E, Shrinathpuram, Kota, Rajasthan - 324001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - All India Institute Of Medical Science, raipur, through its Director, Great Eastern Road, opposite gurudwara, AIIMS campus, tatibandh, Raipur, chhattisgarh – 492099 2 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Room No. 348, A Wing, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110011 3 - National Medical Council Pocket - 14, Sector - 8 Dwarka Phase - 1, New Delhi – 110077 4 - All India Institute Of Medical Science Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar, Ansari Nagar East, New Delhi, Delhi 110029 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anmol Sharma and Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.11 18:38:55 +0530 2 09.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mr. Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayers : “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents No 1 & 4 to let the Petitioner join any concerned department as per his suitability & fitness in accordance with the report submitted by the expert committee which had evaluated the petitioner as well as Section 20 (4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; b) pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just, including awarding of the cost of litigation to the petitioner.” 3. Mr. Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was offered to join the respondent No. 1 for PG Junior Resident in the Department of Emergency Medicine. The petitioner joined the said post but unfortunately he met with an accident and his right upper limb had to be amputated. However, now the petitioner has got himself a myo-electric prosthetic hand and he is capable of holding objects, and do movement and reach out for objects. He made a representation to the Head of 3 Department, Emergency Medicine as well as the Director, AIIMS, Raipur that he wished to join the college back after rehabilitation and training with the prosthetic limb. A committee was constituted for deciding his suitability to continue the course by the Dean, AIIMS, Raipur. The committee evaluated the petitioner’s case and opined that the petitioner may pursue Ph.D./MPH courses at AIIMS Raipur or any other job may be given as suitable for the dignity of a MBBS Doctor. 4. At the outset, Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already got a job in a medical post and as such, now he prays that the petitioner may be awarded suitable compensation only. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner has already got a job in medical post, hence his petition has become infructuous. 6. The main relief as sought for by the petitioner in this petition was to direct the respondents to let the petitioner join any concerned Department as per his suitability and fitness in accordance with the report submitted by the Expert Committee which had evaluated the petitioner. The petitioner, as per his own say, has been granted a suitable post and as such, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. There is no prayer with regard to grant of compensation and as such, the said relief cannot be 4 granted. 7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already got a job in medical post, the instant petition is dismissed, on this ground alone. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet