Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN
Ramkala Varma D/o Shri Dhuna Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. The nitty-gritty of the instant petition is that the respondent-Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement dated 24.11.2023 inviting applications for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Police Forces (CAPFs), SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Riffles. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied under the SC-Female category. Sequentially, the petitioner, completed the part-I registration of the online application form and appeared in the online examination held on 07.03.2024; wherein she had obtained 135.95 marks and the cut-off under the category in which the petitioner had applied was 119.16 marks.
2. Consecutively, the petitioner was called for PET/PST and DV/DME which was scheduled on 08.11.2024. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and she was declared unsuccessful/disqualified in PST due the following two reasons:
2.1 That the petitioner has a congenital melanocytic nevus (mark) on back.
2.2 That the report of Cardiomegaly (Chest X-Ray) was not as per the norms of the respondent-recruiting agency.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER:
3. In this backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitio
Medical disqualifications based on benign conditions must be grounded in substantial evidence; arbitrary decisions violate the right to equality under Article 14.
Where appointment order has been issued and the petitioner had accepted the same by reporting for duty, subsequent medical examination report cannot make the petitioner ineligible for appointment.
Rejection of a candidate based on Keloid formation requires evidence of interference with equipment; mere presence is insufficient under recruitment guidelines.
The court upheld that mere presence of keloids does not guarantee fitness for service; operational risks and examiners' expert opinions carry significant weight.
The decision of the medical experts and the provisions of the Medical Manual prevail in determining fitness for employment, and challenges to the medical requirements are not sustainable.
Technicalities can never mar the substantive right of the parties, if there is a specific mention and reference of the reflection of the registration of the certificate of medical practitioner, who h....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
