Medical Examination

2018 PLC(CS) 493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 21Civil serviceAppointment of Deputy District Public Prosecutor against disabled quotaMedical examinationRe-examination before Special Medical Board after clearance from Medical BoardMala fideVested rightLocus poenitentiae, principle ofApplicabilityPetitioner being successful candidate was recommended for appointment subject to medical examinationMedical Board cleared the candidate and recommended for adjustment against the disabled quota in the departmentDepartment constituted Special Medical Board for re-examination of the candidateContention of petitioner was that constitution of Special Medical Board was based on mala fide of the departmentValidityMedical Board was constituted for medical examination of the candidate before his joining the department

Nothing was required before joining of the petitioner as Deputy District Public Prosecutor except report of the Medical Board

When candidate was not appointed and he started litigation, then department issued letters for re-examination of petitioner which was mala fide on their part

Department was estopped from writing the letters again as already specific instructions for constitution of Medical Board had issued

Vested right had accrued in favour of petitioner which could not be deviated from by the department

State and its institutions were bound to ensure that person with disabilities got reasonable accommodation in order to enjoy their Fundamental Rights in the same manner as enjoyed by other citizens

Department should have considered the possibility of providing necessary technical and human support to ensure that the petitioner was able to perform his duties was not discriminated on the ground of disability

Once a decisive step had been taken by the Authority then same could not be retracted

Offer letter was issued to the petitioner in consequence whereof he fulfilled all the terms and conditions of offer letter by having his degrees verified and having a fresh medical examination

Department under the principle of locus poenitentiae could not deny the petitioner the post as valuable rights had accrued to him

Authority being responsible of passing an order creating certain rights would not be justified to take a turn and retrace the steps to undo the said order

Impugned order was passed against the actual facts and was misconceived which was set aside

Department was directed to allow the petitioner to submit his joining report as Deputy District Public Prosecutor

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLC(CS)N 64 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 8Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994, Regln. 30(5) [since repealed]Sacked employeeReinstatement in serviceMedical examinationDelay in joining of service by the sacked employeeEffect

Petitioner being sacked employee was offered to join his duty on reinstatement but he could not join duty within ninety days and offer was cancelled

Validity

Petitioner did not join the employer company (Government owned) within the stipulated time period of ninety days

No provision existed in Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 to condone delay in joining the service

Medical certificate of fitness was the basic requirement for entry into service

Employee was offered to join service after gap of fifteen years from his previous medical examination

No premium could be given to the petitioner on the ground that previously he was declared fit as employee had admitted that he was suffering from Hepatitis "C"

Sub-Committee (regularization of contract/daily wages employee) had no power in the cases of reinstatement

Claim of petitioner was rightly rejected by the employer company due to non-joining of duty within statutory period of ninety days

Petitioner had failed to undergo medical examination as required under R.30(5) of Oil and Gas Development Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PCrLJ 594 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtMedical ExaminationNecessityDeceased was not medically examined soon after her alleged murderDeceased was buried and after 45 days of her burial, her dead body was exhumed in presence of Judicial MagistrateDeceased was thereafter examined by two doctorsStatements of both the doctors/witnesses showed that dead body of deceased was putrefied

Immediate medical examination of the deceased was necessary to corroborate the medical evidence with the ocular testimony of witnesses, who allegedly seen the injuries on the person of the deceased at the time of giving bath to her

After lapse of considerable long period and due to petrification, most of the wounds were not visible

Medical testimony was absolutely in conflict with the ocular evidence

Accused was acquitted, in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

2017 PLC(CS) 556 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Notification No.SOR-IV(S&GAD)-5-16/84 dated 18-04-1984AppointmentMedical examinationScopePetitioner was appointed on contract basis but his service was terminated and post was again advertisedPetitioner, after second advertisement qualified for the appointment and was advised to get medically examinedPetitioner was declared medically unfit and department refused to join him in the service

Contention of petitioner, in intra-court appeal was that he was appointed on the basis of a valid medical certificate and declaring him unfit in the second round for the same post was mala fide

Validity

Employee, under the Rules, was not required to produce fresh medical certificate of fitness in circumstances

Subsequent appointment was subject to the condition that there must not be a break in service of the employee

Petitioner was terminated from service on 06-06-2011 and new employment letter was issued on 07-07-2011 with a break in his service of one month

No illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra-Court appeal of employee was dismissed in circumstances.