Following the SSB results, recommended candidates come before the medical board to complete their medical board. The medical board takes 4 to 5 days to finish in the concerned Military Hospital, after which the applicants are dispersed. To continue, applicants must pass the Test. The High Court Of Gauhati upheld this through a Learned Single Bench MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA in ANIL YADAV V. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS (WP(C)/4821/2020).

Facts of the case – The petitioner had applied for the “Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA and SSF, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018” as advertised in Employment News, July 21-27, 2018. The petitioner passed the written Test and was then called for a medical examination, which resulted in the petitioner being ruled unfit, according to the Medical Test Report dated 23.01.2020. The petitioner used the certificate to file an appeal against medical unfitness, and the Review Medical Examination (RME) was held on October 8, 2020. However, while the petitioner’s Color Vision and Ear were judged to be in his favor in the RME, the petitioner was again deemed unsuitable due to “Knock knee” due to a determination of “Gross knock knee IMD more than 5 cm.”

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, following the RME, the petitioner had himself evaluated by Dey’s Nursing Home, Hojai, and the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, and his “knock knee” was determined to be within normal ranges. As a result, it is argued that the petitioner was not only discriminated against by the respondent authorities but that his case was also not adequately assessed. The RME was done haphazardly to reject the petitioner’s candidacy. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following cases to support his arguments – “Baikuntha Rajbongshi v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 4 GLR 424: 2018 Legal Eagle (Gau) 243, and (ii) Devinder v. Border Security Force & Anr., W.P.(C) 8130/2011 decided on 18.11.2011.”

The learned CGC, on the other hand, has claimed that the Medical Fitness Test and Review Medical Examination are based on the “Guidelines for recruitment medical examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles.” It was last revised in May 2015 and lays out the procedure for examining for “knock-knee” deformity. It is asserted that the original record of the Estt. Recruitment Branch contains, among other things, a photograph of the petitioner taken on 08.10.2020 at the time of his RME, which reveals that the petitioner had “knock knee,” as the distance between the two ankles was more than the scale of 5 cms. As a result, it is argued that because the petitioner’s “knock knee” deformity was more significant than five cms., the authorities did not make any error in declaring him medically unfit due to “knock-knee.”

The learned Government Advocate contends that he is only a nominal party to this writ petition, that he has nothing to say, and that his attendance is solely to protect the State’s interests.

The Learned Judge relies on a medical textbook, “The Measurement and Analysis of Axial Deformity at the Knee,” written by Kenneth A. Krackow. The tibiofemoral bone diagrams are included in the book, and it is indicated that “if normal is presumed to be 6^o valgus, the deformity is 14^o valgus,” according to the book. As a result, the RME appears to be consistent with the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital’s X-Ray Report and Medical Certificate. The learned CGC stands for respondent nos. 1 to 4 presented a print-out of the petitioner’s image in the record, conveying a prima facie visual impression that the internal malleolar distance is more than the 05 cm scale. The Learned Judge relies on the case of Devinder (supra). In that instance, the Delhi High Court ordered a second medical examination without any empirical data, which is not the situation here. In the present case, GMCH’s X-Ray Report and Medical Certificate dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure-K) provide the necessary empirical facts on the occurrence of the “Right tibiofemoral angle-6.5 degree; Left tibiofemoral angle- 6.12 degree.” As a result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

District Scrutiny Committee refers to the District Scrutiny Committee established under section 12 for each District to suggest names of Venture Educational Institutions and instructors and tutors whose services are judged eligible for provincialisation. The High Court Of Gauhati upheld this through a Learned Single Bench MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA in SAHIDUR ISLAM V. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS (WP(C)/1345/2021).

Facts of the case – The petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as an HS Science Teacher of the West Gaspara Girls’ ME Madrassa as per resolution no. 2 adopted in meeting no. 38 on 21.03.2008 by the Managing Committee, issued by the Headmaster & Secretary of the said institution. It is assumed that the petitioner was primarily a Social Studies teacher. Despite the District Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation that his service is provincialized against the Social Studies subject, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent no. 2), issued the impugned order. It provincializes three Assistant Teachers’ assistance, including the respondent nos. 7 and 8.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities should have provincialized the services of one full-time Headmaster and four (four) Assistant Teachers as per Section 3(1) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. Also, it should be read with Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 because the school has ten students.

Contrary to the petitioner’s arguments, the learned counsel for respondents nos. 7 and 8 have submitted in support of the injunction application. They claimed that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has misled this Court into believing that he was appointed as a Social Studies teacher, which is incorrect. As a result, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

The petitioner was appointed in service by the Managing Committee as a Science Teacher [HSSLC (Science) passed], and the DEEO approved the petitioner’s employment as a Science Teacher. Even though the petitioner claimed to be teaching Social Studies in the writ petition, the petitioner openly confessed in paragraph-7 of his affidavit-in-opposition submitted in the interlocutory application that he was employed as Assistant Teacher (Science) and authorized as such. Thus, respondent no. 7 was the School’s Headmaster when the petitioner began his duty as an Asst. Teacher (Science).

The Learned Judge, Considering the factual matrix, despite the petitioner’s appointment as an HSSLC (Science) passed Assistant Teacher, the DSC determined that the petitioner was teaching the “Social Studies” topic. In contrast, respondents nos. 7 and 8 were both determined to be teaching “Language” subjects by the DSC. As a result, the interim order entered in this writ petition on 01.03.2021 will be prolonged until respondent 2 makes a new determination. However, it is stressed that respondent no.2 will not be influenced by this ruling in determining the case, consequently prolonging the interim order as previously stated.

Click here to view the Judgement

Reviewed by Rangasree.

The criminal petition is filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C (direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest) praying to be enlarged on bail, by the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 408(criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrong loss may ensure to person whose interest offender is bound to protect) 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with 34 of IPC ( acts done by several person in furtherance of common intention). And the petition is allowed by the High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the Honorable MR. Justice H.P. Sandesh in the case Keshava M P and Pavithra Suresh vs state of Karnataka ( criminal petition no 289/2022) on 20th January 2022.

Learned counsel, Sri lakshmikant K appeared from the side of petitioner and learned High court government pleader, sri H S Shankar appeared from the side of respondent.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 was working as Territory Manager in the IIFL Company and they used to keep the pledged articles and disburse the loan amount and when the pledged articles were examined, came to know that fake articles were pledged and some of the gold articles are missing and hence suspected the role of the petitioner No.1 and also other employees accused Nos.2 to 4. Accused No.5 is the wife of petitioner No.1 and they indulged in such acts. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioners and also other accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 418, 420 read with 34 of IPC.

Arguments presented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that these two petitioners, who happens to be the husband and wife have not indulged in any such offence and the alleged incident was taken place on 1st July 2021 and the complaint was lodged on 18th September 2021 and no specific allegations are made in the complaint and also worth of the criminal breach of trust is also not mentioned in the complaint. Only with an oblique motive, a false case has been registered against the petitioners.

Arguments presented by the learned High court government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent side that the specific allegations are made in the complaint that these two petitioners who are the husband and wife have indulged in committing the offence of criminal breach of trust and some of the gold articles which were pledged were missing and when such allegations are made, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.

After hearing both the counsels and using the records presented before the Honorable court by them, though the allegation is made with regard to breach of trust is concerned against this petitioner and also against other employees, nothing is stated in the complaint about the total amount of criminal breach of trust for committing fraud. When such being the factual aspects of the case, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and this Court can direct the petitioners to assist the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

And the petition is allowed by the court that the petitioner shall be realised on bail on certain grounds such as : The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned investigating Officer. The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating Officer to complete the investigation and they shall appear before the investigating Officer, as and when called for. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. And the petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month that is, on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Sugam Anand Mishra