Dismissed

Pawan Kumar Jangir v. Sashastra Seema Bal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2023CW/8041/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his unfitness declaration for the post of Constable Washerman based on an initial medical report and a review report. The court held that the review board acted properly, the ailment was not cured, and directing re-examination after a six-year lapse was not appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Prayers for re-medical examination and declaration of fitness were rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

Pawan Kumar Jangir Vs Sashastra Seema Bal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001680]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8041/2018

¶4

Pawan Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Jangir, aged about 25 years, R/o Kalots, Tehsil Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sashastra Seema Bal, through its Director General, Office of the Director General, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Force Head Quarters, East Block-V, RK Puram, New Delhi-110066

¶8

The Assistant Director Recruitment, Sashastra Seema Bal, Force Head Quarters, East Block- V, RK Puram, New Delhi-110066

¶9

The Assistant Commandant (Med), Sashastra Seema Bal, Force Head Quarters, East Block- V, RK Puram, New Delhi-110066

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶13

04/02/2023

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the memorandum dated 04.12.2017 as well as the Review Medical Board examination report dated 28.03.2018, whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit for the purpose of his appointment on the post of Constable Washerman (Male). The petitioner has also prayed for his re-medical examination by an independent medical board and if petitioner is found medically fit, he may be considered for appointment with all consequential benefits.

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001680]

[CW-8041/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process for the post of Constable on account of advertisement issued by the respondent CISF.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and he was declared qualified and thereafter, the petitioner participated in the Physical Standard Test (PST), where height and chest of the petitioner was measured.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner after qualifying in PST, was asked to submit his documents for verification and further the petitioner appeared in the written examination, wherein he was declared qualified.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner also qualified in Trade test and therefore, he was asked to undergo medical examination at Composite Hospital, SSB, Gorakhpur, UP on 01.12.2017.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents on 04.12.2017 issued a memorandum declaring the petitioner ‘medically unfit’ due to some ailment being diagnosed and found in the petitioner relating to his disability to do the job of Constable.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was asked to get his treatment done and his disease was curable and as such, the petitioner again appeared in medical test, however the respondents have declared the petitioner unfit in the Review Medical Examination.

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001680]

[CW-8041/2018]

Learned counsel submitted that the certificate which was given in favour of the petitioner for treating him suitable by way of operation was not kept in mind by the Review Medical Board and as such, this Court is required to declare the action of the respondents to be illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶29

This Court finds that the petitioner had undergone medical examination and initially he was found unfit where two specific reasons were assigned for treating the petitioner unfit.

¶30

This Court finds that the petitioner was given further opportunity by way of conducting the Review Medical Examination and the Review Medical Examination Board also found that the petitioner was having DNB Persists & Rt. Maxillary Sinus Lt. Lower Lang field-Clear.

¶31

This Court finds that if the Review Medical Examination has been conducted and the petitioner has been given another opportunity to get examined, whereby he has not been declared suitable, then the repeated medical examination cannot be permitted and as such, it is prerogative of the Authorities to consider the eligibility of the medical fitness or unfitness of the person concerned after following the relevant parameters.

¶32

This Court finds that in the present case, since the Authorities have not acted in an arbitrary manner and as many as three Members of the Review Medical Board examined the petitioner and as such, this Court finds that prayers sought by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001680]

[CW-8041/2018]

This Court further finds that the recruitment process for the post in question was initiated way back in the year 2015-16 and now after lapse of about 6 years, it would not be appropriate to direct the re-medical examination of the petitioner.

¶37

This Court finds the present writ petition lacks merit and as such, the same stands dismissed accordingly.

¶38

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶39

Himanshu Soni/4

Pawan Kumar Jangir v. Sashastra Seema Bal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Jangir v. Sashastra Seema Bal 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

M/S Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer (Nh and Ppp)

R.G. Colonizers Private Limited Vs Sweets Buildhomes Projects

M/S Monilek Hospital and Research Centre, Vs Dr. Sanjay Khandelwal Son of Shri Radha Mohan Gupta

Akash Mangal Son of Rajendra Mangal Vs Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University

Asha Ram Choudhary S/O Shri. Shyojiram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan through Principle Secretary

Smt. Krishna Kaushik Wife of Late Shri Naresh Kaushik Vs Parbhu Dayal Sharma Son of Late Shri Rampal Sharma