Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Rekha Borana, JJ.
Mahendra Godara S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Godara - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Home Department and ors. – Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 273 of 2022
Decided On : 02-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Harshad Bhadu, Mr. Sameer Pareek
Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Court to issue Certain Writs - Post of Sub-Inspector pursuant to recruitment notification – Succeeded - Petitioner possessed high order of colour perception and that he was fit for post from Ophthalmology side – Held, There was a conflict of opinion/ discrepancy in Medical Board reports it was essential to have a fresh medical examination conducted – Court opinion that respondents would even have been justified in rejecting petitioner’s candidature on basis of first Medical Board’s report itself because petitioner was seeking entry into police services which has direct involvement with public safety - Induction of a candidate suffering from vision defect into police service could entail risk to people at large, when such officer who suffers from the vision defect is on field duty - Guideline referred to supra (clause 14(d)) is just advisory in nature - Reasonable grounds to believe as have been stipulated in clause 14(d), does not require that a voluminous reasoning should be recorded for holding fresh medical examination - Term ‘reasonable ground to believe’ just indicates that if competent authority has reasonable doubt, regarding first medical examination, in that situation, re-medical examination can be ordered - In present case, recruiting authority, minutely examined record and thereafter issued the order requiring 15 provisionally selected candidates including writ petitioner to undergo a fresh medical examination - Petitioner did not challenge said order and submitted himself to fresh medical examination, wherein, colour vision defect of petitioner was detected and highlighted - It may be noted here that in first as well as second medical examination, petitioner failed Test - Recruiting authority would have been justified to oust writ petitioner from zone of consideration right after First Medical Board report but it acted pragmatically and gave a second chance to candidates - Petitioner had cleared Lantern test in examination by Ophthalmology Board but when second medical examination was conducted Lantern Test was undertaken with two apertures, Petitioner was able to identify primary colours with 13 mm aperture, however, he failed in test taken with 1.3 mm aperture Board noted that he was unable to differentiate between Yellow and Green colours - Concluded that high grade colour perception was absent and petitioner was unfit for service – Court firm view that the impugned action petitioner was required to undergo second medical examination, was absolutely justified in prevailing facts and circumstances - Nature of service, to which petitioner seeks access, is extremely sensitive because a police officer is required to extensively deal with public safety and assigning field duty to a police officer suffering from colour vision defect could entail risk to public lives and safety – He could not dispute fact that a candidate with vision defect, which has been detected in petitioner, is not entitled to be appointed to police service - Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the appellant herein, being aggrieved of the order dated 26.10.2021, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10432/2021 preferred by the appellant petitioner was dismissed.
2. The appellant petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 05.10.2016. He succeeded in the competitive written examination as well as physical proficiency test and was declared successful as per the result declared on 01.09.2020. After being declared successful in the initial selection process, the petitioner appellant was called for medical examination vide communication dated 31.12.2020. The petitioner underwent the medical examination at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur which issued a certificate dated 05.01.2021 opining that the petitioner was otherwise medically fit for appointment except for a Colour Vision Defect for which, he was referred to special Ophthalmologist Board for more accurate opinion. The board, constituted of Ophthalmology specialist, issued its report dated 06.01.2021 opining that on the colour vision parameter, as per the Ishihara Chart, there was partial red-green defect, but on the lantern test, the petitioner possessed high order of colour perception and that he was fit for the post from Ophthalmology side.
3. The Director General of Police issued a schedule for re-medical examination of 15 provisionally selected candidates including the petitioner. The re-medical examination was undertaken at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on 24.02.2021. After conducting the re-medical examination, the Medical Board issued a certificate dated 25.02.2021, opining that the petitioner appellant was having defective colour vision owing to lack of high grade colour perception. Pursuant thereto, the final result was declared wherein, the petitioner’s name was omitted upon which, he preferred the above writ petition which has been dismissed by order dated 26.10.2021. The petitioner has assailed the above order in this special appeal.
4. Shri Harshad Bhadu, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant referred to the statutory instructions dated 13.03.2020 governing physical examination of candidates for admission into various state services under the Government of Rajasthan and urged that as per clause 14 (reproduced hereinbelow), second medical examination of the candidate cannot be conducted unless reasons are recorded in writing :-
“14. Guidelines for re-examination.-(d) Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that Medical examination has not been properly conducted, the Government may order re-medical examination. Such re-medical examination can be conducted at any time but in no case later than 6 months after the first medical examination. No fee shall be charged from the candidates for such re-examination.”
5. Shri Bhadu contended that in the present case, no reasons were recorded in the order dated 22.02.2021 whereby, re-medical examination was directed. The first Medical Board gave a pertinent report after taking opinion from three Ophthalmology experts that the petitioner was fit for the post from Ophthalmology side. The order dated 22.02.2021 whereby, the re-medical examination was scheduled, is absolutely laconic and contrary to the mandate of clause 14(d) of the guidelines. He further submitted that the second Medical Board has given an opinion regarding lack of colour perception on the basis of the Ishihara test which is obsolete, whereas, the petitioner possesses the full spectrum colour perception as per the Lantern test, which is more accurate. Shri Bhadu thus urged that the order dated 07.07.2021 whereby appointments to the post in question were made by the respondents omitting the name of the petitioner so also the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench be quashed and respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector as per his standing in merit.
6. We have given our t
