Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.10.2024
VINOD MENGWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Joby P. Varghese, Adv.
Through: Mr.Kanav Vir Singh, SPC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Medical Board Proceedings dated 29.07.2024, 01.06.2024, 06.09.2023 and the Unit Medical Examination Report dated 15.12.2022, whereby the petitioner has been placed in the medical category S1H3A1P1E[1] due to bilateral severe mixed hearing loss instead of S1H[2] (SHAPE-1 category).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been suffering from acute hearing loss right since 1992. He, because of use of the hearing aid, was placed in the S1H2A1P1E[1] in the medical board conducted on 27.08.2008. Thereafter, an opinion was sought as to whether due to his categorisation as H[2], he can still be considered as being in SHAPE-I. Due to the relaxation in SHAPE-I category, it was opined by the competent authority that the petitioner would fall in the category of SHAPE-1. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.11.2008, on the clarification received, the petitioner was placed in SHAPE-I category and was held eligible for the promotion from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) to the post of Sub Inspector. In 2014, he was thereafter promoted from Sub Inspector to Inspector (Ministerial).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical examination that was conducted on 15.12.2022, however, was without the hearing aid and it wrongly recorded that the petitioner has suffered from the hearing loss only with effect from annual medical examination of 2022. He submits that because of this mistake, the petitioner has been placed in S1H3A1P1E[1] (T-24) category, which would not be considered as SHAPE-I, thereby denying the petitioner a chance to get promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant.
5. Having considered the submissions made in the petition and the documents annexed thereto, we are of the opinion that the respondents should consider the present petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide on the same by way of a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate their decision to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved of the decision taken by the respondent, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.
6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J OCTOBER 16, 2024/rv/as Click here to check corrigendum, if any