Typing Test Exercise 9: 400 Words in a Flash – Can You Beat the Clock?

The report was submitted in 2018 stating that the time period of implication or complication was dependent on many variables and, therefore, it could not be predicted. Counsel for the appellant contended that in such circumstances, denying the appointment to the appellant was not justified. After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the State was asked to produce the medical opinion of the Board of Doctors constituted by the State which was the basis of declaring the appellant unfit. Perusing the affidavit of Additional Director General of Police, Administration Haryana, Panchkula filed along with the report the Court found that two doctors downloaded the complications as available from the books and conveyed it to the authorities and did not give their own opinion. The medical examination report of the office of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa was also placed on the record where again there is no observation of the doctor for holding the appellant to be unfit. Examining the medical report the Bench said that we only find that while it has been stated that there is evidence of right and there is no observation of the doctor for treating him unfit. Speaking for the Bench Justice Prakash highlighted that it is apparent that while Civil Surgeon, Sirsa has declared the appellant as unfit no doctor from PGIMS, Rohtak or from PGIMER Chandigarh has declared him unfit for discharging duties of constable. A specific opinion is required to be given for declaring a person unfit. Merely, because of some 15 degree curve in the spine we cannot say that it is a deformity nor can it be said that there is a finding to deprive him from performing the duties as a constable. The Bench pointed that it would not have expertise to declare a particular person fit or unfit but since a Special Medical Board consisting of seven doctors from the necessary medical fields namely Orthopedics, Neurology, Neurosurgery and Internal Medicine have examined the appellant and found him fit denying him the benefit of appointment would be a travesty of justice. Consequently, the plea was allowed and the Court directed to give benefit to him notionally from the date the candidates lower in merit from him have been appointed. While disposing of the case the Court said his pay fixation shall be done accordingly and actual benefits shall be given from the date of passing of this order. The exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of this order.