Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 3060
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Munnuri Laxman, J
VINOD JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1987/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohan Singh Shekhawat
For the Respondents:
An employer is entitled to re-verify the medical status of employees appointed under disability reservation to prevent fraud, provided that no adverse action is taken without granting the employee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the employer's direction to undergo a re-medical examination to re-verify the benchmark disability under which the petitioner was previously selected and appointed as Teacher Grade-III (Level-I). The petitioner had submitted a valid disability certificate from a competent Medical Board and had been examined by the employer prior to appointment. The State Government subsequently implemented a policy to re-verify the benchmark disability of all candidates who obtained reservation under this category to prevent fraudulent availment. The central issue was whether an employee, already appointed based on a valid medical certificate, could be subjected to a fresh medical examination. The court observed that the employer cannot be prevented from re-verifying medical status to detect fraud; however, it emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be upheld. The instant writ petition is disposed of restraining the respondents from taking any action based on any adverse report on the basis of a re-medical examination without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to respond to any such adverse report.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of appointment under disability reservation and the subsequent policy for re-verification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to the necessity of a fresh medical board when a valid certificate already exists. (Para 4) |
| 3. permissibility of medical re-verification subject to the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
Order
1. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter has been taken up and heard for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the directions of the employer directing the petitioner to undergo a re-medical examination to determine and to re-verify the benchmark disability under which the petitioner was selected previously.
3. The facts of the present writ petition disclose that the petitioner underwent the recruitment/selection process based on the benchmark disability by submitting a certificate of disability issued by the competent Medical Board. The petitioner was selected and at the time of appointment also, he was subjected to a medical examination for ascertaining his disability. After being satisfied with the disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level- I). While the petitioner was working on the said post, the State Government took a policy decision to subject all such persons who obtained the reservation under the disability category to re-verify the benchmark disability of all such candidates by subjecting them to a fresh medical re-examination to be conducted by the Medical Board nominated by the employer.
4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in the backdrop of a valid certificate of disability issued by the competent Medical Board and which was affirmed by a medical examination done by the employer before appointment was given to the petitioner, again the petitioner cannot be subjected to fresh Medical Board.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that this Court cannot prevent the employer from re-verifying the medical status of the employees to find out fraudulent availment of reservation under benchmark disability. However, before any action is taken on any adverse report of the fresh medical re-examination, no adverse order can be passed against the petitioner without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing.
6. In the said backdrop, the instant writ petition is disposed of restraining the respondents from taking any action based on any adverse report on the basis of a re-medical examination without giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to respond to any such adverse report.
7. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
