Full Text
*
+ o/o
IN THE HIGH COURT OF. DELHI AT NEW DELHI \
W.P.(C) 4692/2011 & CM No. 9526/2011
RAKESH KUMAR BAISLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.L.Bareja, Advocate
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
08.07.2011
W.P. (C) No. 4692/2011
ORDER
1. Whereas the petitioner relies upon medical certificates issued to him by Ophthalmologist of Civil Hospital in Aizwal as also by the Ophthalmologist of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi: Both certifying that the petitioner has no ophthalmological disability, the doctors of CRPF Hospital have determined that petitioner suffers from colour blindness..
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that doctors at the CRPF Hospital who certified the petitioner, were not specialists in the field i.e. were not Ophthalmologists. W.P.(C) No: 4692/2011 Page 11 2011:DHC:17227-DB
3. We find that in the past such kind of controversies were being set to rest by various Division Benches of this Court requiring the person concerned to be examined by a Board of Doctors (having specialists in the field) to examine the person concerned and give opinion. The parties were held bound by the -t opinion of the doctor.
4. Since the petitioner is at Aizwal, we dispose of the writ petition directing that the respondents would get in touch with the Commandant of the Army (R&R) Hospital, Delhi Cantonment and would process the matter pertaining to the constitution of a Board, which would examine the petitioner and would obtain a date when petitioner would be required to present himself before the Board. Said date would be communicated by the respondents to the petitioner and to enable the petitioner to report at Delhi and be examined, would permit the petitioner to leave Aizwal so A that the petitioner can reach Delhi well in time.
5. The Commandant of the Army Hospital would ensure that ·· experts in the field i.e. Ophthalmologist are nominated on the Board.
6. Decision of the Board would be sent to the Director General, CRPF, who would forward a copy thereof to the petitioner.
7. If the Board opines that the petitioner does not suffer from any ophthalmologica.l.deficiency, the respo.ndent would proceed to give appointment to the petitioner as Sub-Inspector and in such eventuality, petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits of his being impaneled for appointment as Sub-Inspector, except back wages for the said post. W.P.(C) No. 4692/2011 Page I 2
8. Compliance within 8 weeks.
9. No costs.
10. Dasti. CM No. 9526/2011 Dismissed as infructuous. JULY 08, 2011 rs