DANESH KHAN Vs. JAMIA HAMDARD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER applied for the post of Laboratory Technician (Senior Scale) with the respondent/Jamia Hamdard University. Petitioner was declared successful in the selection process however petitioner was not allowed to join duties because according to the respondent the petitioner was not medically fit. Petitioner questions this action of the respondent in denying him employment by stating that he is not medically fit.

(2.) A reading of the writ petition shows that pursuant to the directions of the respondent/University petitioner reported to one Dr. Anwar Habib, an empanelled doctor of the respondent/University, and who opined on 28.2.2011 that "in view of Arotic Valve replacement opinion of Petitioner accordingly reported to Dr. A.K. cardiologist is required". Bisoi, Assistant Professor C.T.V.S. AIIMS on 14.3.2011 who has opined that the petitioner is "fit to carry on normal duty and fit for normal employment". It cannot be disputed that Dr. A.K. Bisoi was a Cardiologist and competent to check the issue of medical fitness of the petitioner on the aspect of aortic valve replacement. For the sake of completion of narration it may also be mentioned that Dr. Ripin Gupta, Cardiologist, Fortis Hospital has also declared the petitioner fit to join normal duties as per his opinion dated 14.3.2011. Petitioner with the opinion of Dr. A.K. Bisoi approached Dr. Anwar Habib, the empanelled doctor of respondent/University, and who on 15.3.2011 on the basis of Dr. A.K. Bisoi's opinion gave a report that "on the basis of assessment report given by Dr. A.K. Bisoi, Asstt. Prof. C.T.V.S., AIIMS, individual is declared fit". Individual mentioned in the endorsement of Dr. Anwar Habib is petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent sought to argue that one Dr. S. Dwivedi has found the petitioner medically unfit and Dr. S. Dwivedi is an empanelled doctor of the respondent/University. However, I find this argument to be misconceived because the counter -affidavit states that Dr. S. Dwivedi only reported that petitioner was an asymptomatic having undergone mechanical aortic valve replacement in the year 2003 and therefore required frequent cardiac check -up. Thus requiring regular medical check -up cannot mean that petitioner has been declared medically unfit by Dr.Dwivedi. I may note that no document whatsoever has been filed alongwith the counter -affidavit to support the case of the respondent of the petitioner being medically unfit, and that must obviously be because there is no report even of Dr. S. Dwivedi that petitioner is not fit to join normal duties.