The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of interference by the High Court in matters of medical fitness determined by the Medical Board and Review Medical Board, emphasizing that the court would not intervene unless there was a procedural error or apparent infirmity in the medical report.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

"(i) The Memorandum dated 26.09.2020 (Annex.3) as well as the Review medical Examination Report dated 09.01.2021 (Annex.7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as fit for appointment on the post of HC (RO)/HC (RM) and to grant him appointment on the said post.

(iii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and

(iv) the cost the the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The facts appertain to the present purposes are that the petitioner applied for the post of Head Constable, pursuant to advertisement dated 15.04.2019.

3. Having cleared the written examination and physical efficiency test, the petitioner underwent medical examination, in which he was declared unfit by the Medical Board constituted by the respondents on 26.09.2020, as petitioner is having following issues:-

"1. Pilonidal Sinus on Sacrum

2. Dental Points 09 (Artificial molar & Premolar Teeth)"

4. Against the report aforesaid, the petitioner applied for Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Board also found the petitioner unfit, however with the observation as under:-

"Coagulated Shallow Sinus at natal cleft"

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents' decision of declaring petitioner unfit is contrary to facts and law.

6. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the report dated 29.09.2020 issued by General Surgeon of J.L.N. Government Hospital, Nagaur and submitted that, there is no evidence of active fistula or abscess in perianal region.

7. He, thus, argued that in view of the above report which has been prepared by a General Surgeon, petitioner deserves to be declared fit and the respondents' reports are liable to be ignored/set aside.

8. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents argued that, petitioner has been found unfit by Medical Board so also by Review Medical Board. While pointing out that Review Medical Board was comprised of a Surgeon (CH, BSF), he argued that the fitness of a candidate is better left to be determined by the respondents/employer.

9. While relying upon the Division Bench judgment dated 09.11.2017 rendered in case of Hanuman Lal Jat Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Border Security Forces & Ors.(DBSAW No.1259/2017), learned counsel argued that the High Court cannot become an appellate authority over the report furnished by the competent Medical Board of the respondents.

10. Heard.

11. In the report of Medical Board, petitioner was found unfit with respect to his problem in Dental Points also, however the Review Medical Board has declared him fit having more than 14 dental points. Nevertheless, Medical Board so also the Review Medical Board has found the petitioner unfit as the petitioner is having Pilonidal Sinus or Coagulated Shallow Sinus at natal cleft.

12. So far as petitioner's contention, based upon report given by the surgeon of J.L.N. Government Hospital, Naguar is concerned, suffice it to mention that the said surgeon has reported that no evidence of active fistula or abscess in perianal region exists.

13. As far as the petitioner's problem of Pilonidal Sinus on Sacrum is concerned, since both the Medical Board so also Review Medical Board has found the petitioner unfit, in the opinion of this Court, it having practically no knowledge much less expertise cannot become an appellate authority to adjudge petitioner's suitability.

14. Scope of interference by writ Court is very limited. Unless a candidate is able to establish that there was a procedural error in constitution of Medical Board or there was a telling or apparent infirmity in the report given by the Medical Board, the High Court would be loathe in interfering.

15. It has been held by the