Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Rajiv Sahai EndLaw and Asha Menon, JJ., while addressing a petition observed that,
“…an attempt to take a second chance, that too belatedly, after nearly six months, constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.”
Petitioner a candidate for recruitment in the Army Dental Corps having been medically disqualified on account of being found to be suffering from scoliosis by the Medical Board has filed the present petition seeking examination of the petitioner by an impartial third party to determine whether the degree of scoliosis from which the petitioner suffers is beyond the permissible level of 10 degrees.
The petitioner is represented by Advocate Vinay Mathew and Respondents by Sumit Nagpal and Sahaj Garg with Major Arjun Katoch.
Petitioner’s contention is that the Medical Board, the Appeal Medical Board and the Review Medical Board have found the petitioner to be suffering from varying degrees of scoliosis and thus a case for examination by an impartial third party is made out.
Bench observes that the petitioner clearly as an afterthought, is wanting a second chance at the Courts for the same relief as was granted in WP (C) No. 1415 of 2020 on 11-03-2020 and which is not permissible in law.
Further, the Court added that such an attempt to take a second chance, that too belatedly, after nearly six months, constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.
In the present matter, no mala fides are attributed and the petitioner has had sufficient opportunities and is not entitled to yet another opportunity.
All the three Medical Boards have consistently found the petitioner to be suffering from scoliosis and the respondent’s Indian Army cannot be forced to recruit a candidate who, over the period of service, would be not physically fit to do the duties required to be done, thereby unnecessarily burdening and depriving the Army of the presence of a competent dental surgeon/dentist who can be posted wheresoever the service exigencies require.
In the present petition, no merit has been found and Court added that “On request of the counsel for the petitioner and for ensuring that this order does not affect chances of employment elsewhere of the petitioner, we clarify that the observations herein are confined to the subject recruitment process.”
[Dr Vani Viswanathan v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5969 of 2020 & CM No. 21577 of 2020, decided on 04-09-2020]
