Dismissed

Pankaj Patel v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2021CW/10890/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenged the rejection of candidature for the post of Constable. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Medical Board, including one sought by the petitioners, confirmed defective eyesight, justifying rejection as candidates must have vision 6/6 without glasses.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as the petitioners' defective eyesight justified their rejection based on the advertisement requirements.

Pankaj Patel Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10890/2021

¶3

Pankaj Patel S/o Shri Shankar Lal Patel, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Bana Kalla, Post Bana Kurd, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Police Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Police Headquarters, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14115/2021

¶12

Jitendra Meena S/o Shri Nana Lal Meena, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Dhavadi Fala, Post Zamar Mines, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶16

The Director General Of Police, Police Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶17

The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶18

The Superintendent Of Police, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Nupur Bhati. Mr. Keshav Bhati. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary.

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

(2 of 3)

Order

10/11/2021

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the rejections of their candidature for the post of Constable.

¶26

In the writ petitions, the petitioners had questioned the rejection of their candidature essentially on the ground that it was not indicated in the order of rejection as to under which clause of point No.7(IX) and 10(VI), the petitioners were found ineligible.

¶27

It was indicated that under clause 7(IX) of the advertisement, various deficiencies were indicated, however, the particular deficiency, from which the petitioners suffered was not indicated.

¶28

The petitioners also came out with the case that they were verbally informed that there is deficiency in their eyesight and it was claimed that their eyesight was 6X6 and, therefore, rejection of their candidature is not justified.

¶29

Though, no reply to the writ petitions have been filed, learned AAG has produced for perusal of the Court, reports of the Medical Board, which was constituted at the request of the petitioners and in the said reports, the Medical Board has opined that right eye vision of the petitioner – Pankaj Patel was defective (6X12) and for the petitioner – Jitendra Meena both eye vision was defective (6X18).

¶30

It is submitted that the advertisement requires that the candidate must have vision 6X6 without glasses and, therefore, the rejection of petitioners’ candidature is justified.

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

The petitioner – Pankaj Patel has also produced a medical report obtained from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur (‘AIIMS, Jodhpur’). The said report also indicates the vision of the petitioner as under:-

¶33

and advice has been given to wear glasses.

¶34

In view of the above fact situation, wherein the Medical Board, constituted at the instance of petitioners themselves, have opined that the vision of the petitioners is defective and even as per the subsequent opinion produced by the petitioner – Pankaj Patel, AIIMS, Jodhpur has also opined that he requires to wear glasses and the requirement as per the advertisement is that the vision must be 6X6 without glasses, no case for interference in the writ petitions is made out, the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶35

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶36

25&26-PKS/-

Pankaj Patel v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Patel v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpat Lal Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

Deewan Singh Deora Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ratan Singh Vs the Judge, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court

Gajraj Choudhary Vs Canara Bank

Babu Lal Saran Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan