Writ petition regarding rejection of candidature for Engineering Services Examination 2021. The petitioner challenged his disqualification due to locomotor disability affecting one arm and one leg despite clearing preliminary and mains exams. The court dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 3)
[CW-4618/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4618/2020
Prem Kumar Bhargava S/o Shri Ganesh Kumar Bhargave, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Baida Ka Mohalla, V.p.o. Jhajhoo, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheemkant Vyas. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
28/09/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of his candidature for Indian Engineering Services Examination 2019 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission.
The petitioner being eligible applied for the examination for civil engineering. The petitioner based on his disability sought reservation as well.
The petitioner cleared both the preliminary and mains examination and when he was subjected to medical examination vide Annex.8, it was found that petitioner was suffering from locomotive disability pertaining to One Leg and One Arm and
(2 of 3)
[CW-4618/2020]
based on the said determination, he was held ineligible for appointment.
The petitioner filed appeal against the said determination. The appellate board by its decision dated 20.02.2020 (annex.15) came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unfit for all services in engineering services examination, 2019 on account of disability having both OA (one arm right) & OL (one leg right).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner irrespective of the disability indicated, is in a position to perform his duties in terms of the requirements and has annexed certificate (Annex.16) issued by the Himalayan Explorers’ Club indicating that the petitioner has participated in treks organized by it during 2015 and 2016.
It is submitted that the determination made by the two medical boards deserves to be set-aside and respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the advertisement (Annex.3) pertaining to Engineering Services Examination, 2019 indicates that vide Annex.1 to the advertisement the list of services/posts identified suitable for persons with benchmark disability category alongwith the physical requirements and functional classifications has been provided and in the functional classification for all the services for which the examination was held, none of the services have been found suitable for persons with locomotor disability having one arm and one leg affected.
(3 of 3)
[CW-4618/2020]
All the services indicate functional classification as locomotor disability/one arm affected or one leg affected i.e. not both.
Admittedly, the petitioner has locomotor disability in both one arm and one leg and as such, determination made by the medical board and appellate medical board cannot be faulted.
Submissions made that the petitioner would be able to perform his duties, cannot be a reason enough to hold the petitioner eligible, inasmuch as, the medical board having examined the petitioner came to a specific conclusion that the petitioner does not qualify for any of the services in Engineering Services Examination, 2019.
In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference is made out, the petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 9-pradeep/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the medical board's determination that the petitioner was ineligible for appointments due to locomotor disability affecting one arm and one leg.
Whether the petitioner's submission that he could perform duties despite his disability warranted the setting aside of the rejection of his candidature.
Prem Kumar Bhargava
Union Of India
Union Public Service Commission
Dy. Director Estt. (G.r.), Railway Board
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
