[2026:RJ-JD:3640]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15547/2025 Kiran Bala Labana W/o Mitha Lal Labana, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward 1, Ganv Nad Amli Fala, Khoonta, Khunta, District Pratapgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, State Health & Family Welfare Institution, Jhalana Sansthanik Kshetra, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

21/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the provisional list, as well as in the final selection list, after calling the petitioner for document verification.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she appeared for the selection process for the post of Female Health Worker under the disability quota; she was successful in the examination and was called for document verification. After document verification, the petitioner was directed to undergo a medical examination. Upon such direction, the petitioner underwent a medical examination by the Board constituted by the recruitment agency, and the said Board found that the petitioner has a disability of only 30% in the lower left limb. Resultantly, her name was not included in the provisional list as well as in the final list. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. During pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner made a request to refer her case to an independent Medical Board to determine her true disability. As requested by the petitioner, this Court directed AIIMS to constitute a Medical Board for examining the disability of the petitioner and submit a report. According to the report received by this Court, the disability determined by the Medical Board constituted by AIIMS shows that the petitioner has a disability of only 20%.

4. There are three Medical Board opinions: the first opinion certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Medical Board constituted by the Department of Medical & Health in the year 2018 shows that the petitioner has a 45% permanent locomotive disability of the left lower limb, which is non-progressive. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner underwent the selection process. The Medical Board of the employer determined the petitioner's disability to be 30%. AIIMS is a premier institution possessing more expertise and infrastructure compared to the hospital governed by the State; the Medical Board of AIIMS consists of various experts drawn from the specified field, and they have determined 20% disability. The reports of disability issued by the State Medical Boards are not in tandem. The present report obtained from AIIMS was requested by the petitioner herself, and as AIIMS is an independent Medical Board unrelated to the recruitment agency or the State has conducted the examination and has given opinion; it must be given more credence.

5. Normally, in the opinions of different experts, there may be some minimal variation, but the variation cannot be 50%. Whenever there is a minimal variation, this Court can accept such variation as ignorable; whereas, in the present case, the petitioner claimed 45% disability as per the first Medical Board certificate, while the Medical Board of AIIMS determined 20% disability. This means the variation is more than 50%, which would not normally occur in rendering of an expert opinion. Therefore, the report requested by the petitioner from the independent and higher institution must be accepted.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, the present writ petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is also injuncted from claiming any disability on the basis of a 40% benchmark disability in respect of the lower left