Saturday, July 5, 2025
Latest:
delhihighcourt

ANIL KUMAR MOKHARIA vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Information

$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 19.10.2023

+ W.P.(C) 11177/2023 & CM APPL. 43440/2023
ANIL KUMAR MOKHARIA ….. Petitioner
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Nagar and Mr. Mohit Kr. Auluck, Advocates for R-1/UOI
Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner impugns the Medical Examination Report dated 19.07.2023 and the Review Medical Examination Report dated 20.07.2023 whereby petitioner has been declared unfit on account of diminished visual acuity.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is 6/6 both eyes without any correction. However, respondent had declared the petitioner as 6/9 right eye.
3. This Court on 23.08.2023 directed that the petitioner be examined by a fresh Medical Board to be constituted by Research & Referral Hospital of the Army.
4. The report of the Medical Board has been produced before us. The same is taken on record.
5. The Research & Referral Hospital by its report dated 30.09.2023 has opined that petitioner has uncorrected distant visual acuity both eyes 6/6. However, it has also opined that corneal findings are suggestive of post refractive surgery status.
6. The opinion of the Medical Board of Research & Referral Hospital suggests that petitioner has undergone a lasik surgery for correction of his visual acuity which as per the medical standard of the BSF is a disqualification.
7. Since petitioner appears to have undergone corrective surgery after the result of the initial medical board was declared, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the respondent in declaring the petitioner as unfit for selection in view of the diminished visual acuity at the time of examination by the medical board.
8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is consequently dismissed.
9. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MANOJ JAIN, J
OCTOBER 19, 2023/‘rs’

W.P.(C) 11177/2023 2