HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16340/2011

Niranjan Babal S/o Shri Shivkaran Singh, Village Rijani, Post

Hansasar, Dist Jhunjhunu, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Staff Selection Commission Through Regional Director Nr,

Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi

2.

Inspector General Of GFTR HQ Gujarat, Dist Gandhi

Nagar, Gujarat

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Naveen Dhuwan

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sanjay Mishra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

19/01/2023

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with

following prayer:-

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that your

Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept

and allow this writ petition and quash and set

aside the finding of the review medical

examination of the petitioner whereby he

declared unfit. action of the respondent and

further be pleased-

i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the

respondents may kindly be directed to provide

appointment to the petitioner on the post of

constable (GD) in CAPS or in the alternate the

(2 of 4)

[CW-16340/2011]

respondents may be directed to held another

review medical examination for the petitioner

wherein the medical fitness certificates submitted

by the registered medical practitioners may be

considered in the entirety.

ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court

deemed just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case may also be passed in

favour of the petitioner.

iii) Cost may also be awarded in favour of the

petitioner.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuant

to the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2011,

the petitioner participated in the process for selection for

appointment on the post of constable (GD). Counsel submits that

after qualifying the written exam, the petitioner was called for

medical examination but he was declared as unfit for the reason

that he was suffering from hypertension. Counsel submits that the

petitioner applied for his re-medical examination and thereafter,

the petitioner was again medically examined and again he was

found unfit on account of hypertension. Counsel submits that as

per the guidelines issued by the respondents, they were supposed

to admit the petitioner in hospital and medical board came their

opinion about the fitness of the petitioner but here in this case,

the petitioner was never admitted in any hospital and the medical

board gave their opinion contrary to the guidelines issued by the

respondents, so a direction may be issued to the respondents to

conduct re-medical examination of the petitioner and in case, he is

found fit, the appointment be granted to him.

(3 of 4)

[CW-16340/2011]

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that twice the petitioner was medically examined and

he was found unfit on account of hypertension. Counsel submits

that the entire process contained under the guidelines which was

followed and thereafter, the petitioner was re-examined and he

was found unfit. Counsel submits that as per the procedure,

second medical board opinion is final opinion and then the same

cannot be further challenged. Counsel submits that under these

circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and

perused the material available on record.

This fact is not in dispute that in pursuance of the

advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2011, the

petitioner participated in the process for selection for appointment

on the post of constable (GD) and when the petitioner was called

for medical examination he was found unfit due to hypertension.

At the request of petitioner, he was again re-examined on

23.10.2011 by the three doctors of medical B