Petitioner challenged dismissal of his application to reconstitute the medical board due to vision defects. The court rejected the plea as the procedure was followed correctly, and judicial intervention in medical fitness reports without strong evidence is not permitted.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:12074-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14382/2024
Dhanraj Goyal S/o Shri Babulal Goyal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 52, Bal Mandir Colony, Man Town, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anupam Sharma, Adv & Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, Adv for Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj, Adv For Respondent(s) : Ms.Jaya P. Pathak, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order
18/03/2025
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
[2025:RJ-JP:12074-DB]
[CW-14382/2024]
(2 of 4)
unfit for A-Two category for not having the required parameters of vision. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.05.2015 annexing an eye testing certificate issued by the private doctor (wrongly pleaded in the petition as it being issued by the government hospital). The petitioner approached the tribunal and on dismissal of the application, this petition has been filed.
[2025:RJ-JP:12074-DB]
[CW-14382/2024]
(3 of 4)
examination and the third member being a senior medical officer specially nominated. The board is required to examine the candidate at the earliest after the first examination report. The board after recording the findings shall either endorse or differ from the earlier findings recorded.
(4 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:12074-DB]
[CW-14382/2024]
“ 21. Though, the opinion of the Medical Board is subject to judicial review but the courts are not possessed of expertise to dispute such report unless there is strong medical evidence on record to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board which may warrant the constitution of the Review Medical Board. The invaliding Medical Board has categorically held that the appellant is not fit for further service and there is no material on record to doubt the correctness of the report of the invaliding Medical Board.”
11. There is no factual or legal error much less perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.
(MANEESH SHARMA), J
(AVNEESH JHINGAN), J
Himanshu Soni/Tanisha/40
Reportable:- Yes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the mistake ofTreating the initially examining doctor as a member of the reconstitution Medical Board warrants quashing the impugned order.
Whether the report of the private doctor four months after the initial examination justifies reconstituting the Medical Board.
Whether there is perversity or material error warranting doubt in the correctness of the invaliding Medical Board's report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors.Relied on¶30
No.14666828M EX CFN Narsingh Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2019)9 SCC 667] · Who else cites this
Dhanraj Goyal
Union Of India
AVNEESH JHINGAN
MANEESH SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
