The Allahabad High Court has ordered that the petitioner, who has qualified in the selection for the constable in CAPF but was declared unfit twice by the board in the medical examination, to be admitted to the hospital for three days as per the medical guidelines and to check his pulse rate daily.

A Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sangam Pal.

The Court noted that,

The Court on 20.09.2023 passed the following detailed order:-

“The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner qualified in the selection for the constable in CAPF.

In the Medical examination which was conducted a report has been submitted on 28.07.2023, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been declared as medically unfit on account of Tachycardia (pulse rate 140 per minute). Thereafter a review medical examination was conducted and its report was submitted on 07.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the petition, whereby again the petitioner had been declared medically unfit on account of Tachycardia.

Placing reliance on the guidelines for review medical examination in CAPF and Assam Rifles as issued vide the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the petition, the argument is that paragraph 7(e) of the said guidelines categorically provides that for candidates who have been rejected on the ground of Tachycardia should be admitted / hospitalized by the board before giving their final opinion regarding the candidates fitness or otherwise and the hospital report should indicate whether the rise in blood pressure is transient in nature due to excitement etc or whether it is due to any organic disease.

Placing reliance on the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner argues that a perusal of both the reports as indicated above whereby the petitioner has been declared medically unfit on account of tachycardia does not indicate that the petitioner was ever hospitalized and thus the respondents have violated the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021 while rejecting the case of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid, let Ambrish Sahai, counsel appearing for the Union of India seek instructions as to whether the board had hospitalized the petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2021 prior to arriving at a finding and rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground of he suffering from Tachycardia.

Let the instructions be taken within two weeks. List thereafter as fresh.”

The Court further noted that,

In compliance with the above order instructions have been obtained by  Amrish Sahai, counsel for the respondents which has been placed before the Court on October 09.

From the instruction it is very much clear that the guidelines that have been provided for review medical examination vide Clause7 (e) have not been complied with.

Instruction that has been placed before the Court vide paragraph 4 held thus:-

“4. For measurement of Pulse rate, admission of individuals in the Hospital is not necessary. Pulse rate can be measured without admission in Hospital. Pulse rate is not affected by admission in Hospital.”

In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is hereby provided that the petitioner shall be admitted to the hospital as per guidelines for three days and then the review medical examination shall be held per day as per guidelines before giving its final opinion.

“Further, the petitioner shall present himself before the Board on or before 16.10.2023. He shall be hospitalized by respondents and shall be medically examined accordingly and after his hospitalisation, a medical examination shall be held. The opinion of the review Medical Board shall be placed in a sealed cover before the Court on the next date fixed”, the court ordered.

The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on November 3, 2023.

The Patna High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the notification issued for selection of candidates to the post of constables in the Bihar Police and Bihar Special Armed Police.

The PIL is filed by one Satyam Abhishek. There are about 21,391 vacancies in total for which the advertisement  is issued. The contention raised in the petition is with respect to the qualification stipulation having been related to 01.08.2022. It is the contention that as of now many persons would have qualified in the intermediate courses ( 10 + 2 courses) in the   academic year 2022-23, just concluded. The petitioner contends that the cut-off date prescribed for the purpose of acquisition of qualification eliminates a number of candidates who would have qualified to apply for the post in the year 2023. It is alleged that the said prescription would interfere with the equality guaranteed in public employment.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice  K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy perused the records and also heard the learned Advocate General (AG) appearing for the respondents. The AG at the first instance pointed out that the prescription of the cut-off date was in consonance of the decision of the Bihar Government to prescribe the age limit also as on that date, which is evident from Clause 17 of the advertisement. The age prescription is to be verified as on 01.08 2022 for every category of persons applying for selection and so is the educational requirements related to that date.
The Bench do not find any arbitrariness in fixing a cut-off date for acquisition of qualification and also satisfying the stipulation as to upper and minimum age limit. It is for the Appointing Authority to determine such things and if there is no colourable exercise or arbitrariness; the Court cannot set aside such stipulations. 
“We have to keep in mind that the State, the Appointing Authority is better placed to decide on such stipulations and when the application was brought out on 09.06.2023, there is nothing unfair in stipulating a prior date; that too in the immediate prior year for the purpose of acquisition of qualification and satisfying the stipulation of age. We also notice that the petitioner does not have a case that the stipulation in any manner disables him from the candidature.”
The Bench find no reason to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction in public interest. The High Court  dismissed the  petition in limine (at the beginning).

The Supreme Court has ruled that former Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, would remain a member of the National Green Tribunal till the process of selection of Judicial members was completed and till the new Judicial members took charge.

The order was passed by the Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha on an application filed by Enviro Legal Defence Firm.

Representing Justice Singh, Advocate Kazi Sangay Thupden contended that out of a sanctioned strength of 10 Judicial Members and as many Expert Members, the National Green Tribunal currently had six Judicial Members and five Expert Members.

Further, one of the Members of NGT (Justice Singh) was due to demit office on January 16, he added.

The Apex Court ruled that Justice Singh would continue to remain in office. subject to his consent for continuance. The Bench fixed January 27 as the next date of hearing in the case.

Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh placed a note before the Bench, which said:
1. Steps had been initiated for selection of Judicial Members;
2. An advertisement was published in the national daily on December 16, 2022 and the last date of receiving applications was January 12, 2023.

As per Section 4(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, the Tribunal shall consist of not less than 10 but subject to a maximum of 20 full time Judicial Members and the same number of Expert Members.

(Case Title: Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Kolkata & Another vs Union of India & Ors)

Five-time Paralympian shooter Naresh Kumar Sharma has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court order against his arbitrary non-selection for the Tokyo Paralympic Games 2020 by the Paralympics Committee of India.

The petitioner has challenged the Delhi High Court order saying though it held the PCI acted in violation of its own criteria for selecting the team for 2020 Tokyo Paralympics, it didn’t take into account the gravity and urgency of the matter. Therefore, Sharma filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court through Advocate Amit Kumar Sharma and Satyam Singh against the impugned order of the division bench of Delhi High wherein no short date for the hearing was given to the petitioner despite urgency in the matter.

During the July 30 hearing before the high court, Sharma said that the last date of selection for shooting in Tokyo Paralympic is August 2 and if the matter is heard on August 6, it would make the plea infructuous. He has also sought responses from the PCI and the Centre on his appeal against its single-judge order which had refused to interfere with his non-selection for the games.

Also Read: Jharkhand govt recommends CBI probe into death of Dhanbad ASJ

The Counsel had urged the high court to list the matter on an early date, however, the bench had said the petitioner should have approached the court a little earlier and not at the last moment. The court had, however, refused to interfere with the selection of the other player over Sharma at this belated stage, noting that the shooting team was already in a bubble.

It, however, had asked the Union Sports Ministry to examine the aspect and take action, if necessary.

New Delhi (ILNS): After the decision of the Supreme Court in the recruitment of 69,000 assistant teachers, the State Government will soon file an affidavit in the Allahabad High Court to complete the appointment process.

Advocate General Raghavendra Singh, citing the High Court order of October 19 in the matter, said that the Supreme Court has given its decision in the matter.

Now the Principal Secretary will inform the Court by filing an Affidavit soon.

A single bench of Justice Yashwant Verma is hearing the Petition of Sanjay Kumar Yadav. Advocate Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi argued on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Petition has challenged the selection of candidates with low marks and not to call the candidates who are above merit in counseling. Earlier in this case, the Advocate General had told the Court that the matter is still under consideration in the Supreme Court and all the appointments made are not final.

He also assured that if it is found that appointment letters have been given to those with less marks then it will be rectified and more merit will be called for counseling. Also, wrong appointments will be canceled.

After the decision of the Supreme Court, now the Government will file an Affidavit on the further process and give information on December 9.

Read Also: Allahabad HC accepts a plea for promotion of students up to class 8 without exams