Dismissed

Ganga Prasad Meena v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Oct 2023CW/10736/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's declaration as medically unfit for a Sub-Inspector post. The Court held that as there is no provision for a third examination and the recruitment process was completed with vacancies filled, no relief was due.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; recruitment process declared completed with no posts vacant.

Ganga Prasad Meena Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10736/2009

¶3

Ganga Prasad Meena S/o. Ramkaran Meena, aged resident of Village Beerpur, Post-Bigota, Tehsil - Rajgarh, District- Alwar.

¶4

..PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Union of India through Ministry of Railway, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

¶7

Divisional Security Commissioner, North-Western Railway Police Force, Jaipur.

¶8

Chairman, Central Recruitment Committee.

¶9

Marthen Railway Baroda House New Delhi.

¶10

Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Jaipur.

¶11

.........RESPONDENTS

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umang Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

12/10/2023

¶16

By way of filing this petition the petitioner has challenged his medical unfitness certificate dated 03.07.2009 by which he has been declared unfit to get appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.10.2007. Counsel for the petitioner submits that erroneously the respondents has declared the petitioner as unfit while the petitioner is having perfect eyesight and vision, so directions be issued to the respondents to re-

¶17

[CW-10736/2009]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

conduct his medical examination and consider his case for appointment on the post Sub-Inspector with all consequential benefits.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that twice the petitioner was medically examined by the experts and on both occasions he was found to be medically unfit as he was not having the required vision precribed under the rules. Counsel submits that there is no provision for granting third opportunity to the petitioner to get his medical examination. Counsel submits that the Doctors were experts in their field and after thorough examination they found the petitioner as unfit, hence no illegality has been caused by the respondents in declaring the petitioner as unfit to get appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. Counsel submits that even otherwise also, entire recruitment process arising out of the advertisement in question has been completed long back and all advertised posts have been filled and no posts are lying vacant, hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶22

This fact is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement in question the petitioner participated in the process for selection for getting appointment on the post of SubInspector in RPF. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner was medically examined by the Board and he was found to be unfit because of his improper vision and thereafter the petitioner submitted an appeal and his review medical was conducted by the

¶23

[CW-10736/2009]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

Medical Board of the expert Doctors and again he was found to be unfit as the petitioner was not having the desired vision as per the Rules. There is no provision for conducting third medical when twice the petitioner was found to be medically unfit. Even otherwise also entire recruitment process arising out of the advertisement in question has been completed long back and all advertised posts have been filled and no posts are lying vacant. Hence, at this belated stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

KuD/205

Ganga Prasad Meena v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Prasad Meena v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Govind Kumar Shyoran Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahai Shyoran Vs State of Rajasthan, Department of Home, through Its Secretary

Tejpal Singh Choudhary S/O Hariram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Swaroop Saini and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Rajendra Prasad Garg Andors Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Kamal Sharma Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.