SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS court vide order dated 24. 11. 2001 had directed for getting third medical opinion about the respondent No. 3 with the further direction that respondent No. 3 shall make it convenient to appear before the Medical Board i. e. Army R & R Institution and Hospital Delhi Cantt. and that after conducting the examination the report shall be forwarded to this court. The case was ordered be listed for further proceedings after receipt of the report.

(2.) THE above said order dated 24. 11. 2001 was challenged before the Division Bench by filing SAW No. 1070/2001. THE SAW came to be decided on 6. 12. 2001, whereby the parties have been directed to prefer to argue the matter finally before the Single Judge on 10. 12. 2001, irrespective of the fact whether the respondent No. 3 had appeared before the Medical Board or not. THE reference is made of the order dated 6. 12. 2001.

(3.) AS per first medical report L-5 LS1. there is sperlisation of L5 and LS1 meaning thereby that these two vertibrae i. e. Lumbered and scral are united and there is no inter-vertibral joint space between these two vertibrae, hence, movement of L-5 and LS1 can be hampered in spinal movements which is a permanent defect; But the second medical board has only simply stated that spinal movements are within normal range which according to my opinion could not be so in view of the position of L-5 and S1. This matter does need further clarification by the competent medical authority in view of the first report of Medical Board in regard to L5 and S1. If on medical examination substance is found in the medical report of February 2001, the Board shall clear the fact whether such defect in medical examination could hamper day today and special duties of Deputy Superintendent of Police.