The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that having a single testicle will not make an individual unfit for service in Indian Navy [Union of India v Neeraj Mor].
A division bench of the High Court, therefore, upheld a single-judge order directing a fresh medical examination of an Indian Navy aspirant who was found unfit for enrolment on the ground that he had a single testicle.
The Central government had appealed the order which was heard by a division bench of Justices GS Sandhawalia and Vikas Suri who found no illegality in the order of the single-judge.
“There is nothing on record to show that the same disability is such of that kind which would come in his way for serving the Indian Navy,” the Court recorded.
The issue arose when the respondent challenged an order passed by both the enrolment medical officer and the classified specialist declaring him unfit for enrolment during the medical examination. The ground for rejection was that he only had one testicle.
The single-judge had directed a fresh medical examination of the respondent to be conducted by constitution of a Medical Board at either the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Command Hospital Hissar, PGIMER Chandigarh, the Army Hospital Research and Referral Institute or any other institute.
It was directed that if he was found medically fit, he would be given the benefit of his earlier selection and deputed for training.
The division bench found that the order declaring him unfit did not demonstrate why, by virtue of that genetic defect, the respondent would not be in a position to serve the Indian Navy.
“In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified as such in ordering the re-examination by the Medical Board and no prejudice has been caused to the Union of India”, it was held.
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed the process to be completed within a period of three months from receiving the order.
Advocate Anil Chawla appeared for the appellants while the respondent was represented by advocate Harish Bhardwaj.