Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1446 (RAJ)

Gurvinder Singh v. Union of India

2013-08-21

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of CT (Lab Assistant) and to provide appointment with all consequential benefits from the date other candidates were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement Annex.-1. Further, it is prayed that order dated 24.01.2012 (Annex.-P/3) declaring the petitioner medically unlit for the post of CT (Lab Assistant) on the ground of dextrocardio may be quashed and set aside. 2. As per facts of the case, an advertisement was issued by the respondents in the month of July 2011 whereby various posts were advertised including the post of CT (Lab Assistant). The petitioner being eligible for the post submitted his application before the fast date fixed for filling up the application forms. The petitioner in fact applied for the said post under the OBC category. As per terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner was called for physical measurement, physical efficiency test and written test by sending him admit card by the respondents. In the advertisement there was a condition that candidate who will be allowed to appear in the written examination has to pass physical measurement and physical efficiency test and, thereafter, he can be permitted to appear in the written examination. The petitioner after appearing in the physical measurement and physical efficiency test appeared in the written examination conducted on 20.01.2012. The result of the written examination was declared on 24.01.2012, in which, the petitioner was declared successful. 3. It is very strange that although the petitioner was declared successful in the written examination, he was declared medically unfit vide order dt 24.01.2012 which is placed on record as Annex.-P/3. The reason for declaring the petitioner medically unfit is due to dextrocardio which means that the petitioner is having his heart in the right side of his body. As per the petitioner, the denial on the aforesaid ground is totally illegal because no such condition was mentioned in the advertisement that the petitioner will be declared unfit if his heart is situated in the right side of the body. The petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions laid down in the advertisement but he has been denied appointment on illegal ground which is totally unfair on the part of the respondents. 4. The petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions laid down in the advertisement but he has been denied appointment on illegal ground which is totally unfair on the part of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for a cause which is beyond the control of the petitioner he cannot be declared unfit. The petitioner is healthy and he appeared in the physical measurement and efficiency tests in which he was declared successful. In the physical efficiency test, the petitioner completed one mile race in 6.5 minutes, 11 feet long jump and 3.5 feet high jump; meaning thereby, for all purposes, the petitioner is really fit but only for the reason that his heart is situated in the right side of the body he has been denied-appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before filing appeal to the review medical board; the petitioner was examined in the PGI Hospital, Chandigarh where the expert of the hospital gave opinion that petitioner is tested from all angles but not declared medically unfit; more so, the petitioner is having good functional capacity. The review medical board called the petitioner at New Delhi on 31.03.2012 and review medical board also found the petitioner unfit on the basis of same reason of being dextrocardio which means that the petitioner is having heart in the right side. Contention of the petitioner is that reason for denial of appointment and declaring the petitioner medically unfit is totally against the principle of natural justice, therefore, order dated 24.01.2012 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that once the medical board and review medical board gave opinion that the petitioner is unfit, then, he cannot be treated fit for recruitment on the post of CT (Lab Assistant). Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that medical examination by the PGI Hospital, Chandigarh is totally irrelevant for the purpose of adjudging suitability of the candidate in the respondent department. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that medical examination by the PGI Hospital, Chandigarh is totally irrelevant for the purpose of adjudging suitability of the candidate in the respondent department. The Department is required to follow the opinion of the medical board and review medical board constituted for the purpose of making recruitment on the post of CT (Lab Assistant), therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 24.01.2012 which is said to be issued on the basis of report of the medical board in which the petitioner is declared medically unfit, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once a candidate is physically tested by the competent committee and his physical efficiency is also tested by the selection committee, then, obviously it cannot be said that appointment can be denied to the petitioner on the ground that his heart is situated in the right side of the body. Learned counsel for the respondents failed to point out either any rule to substantiate his plea that the petitioner is physically unfit or suggest that dextrocardio condition hinders efficient physical performance. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to satisfy the query of the Court whether as per the medical jurisprudence said dextrocardio condition is coming in way of performing duties as CT (Lab Assistant). 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order Annex.-P/3 dated 24.01.2012 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to declare the petitioner medically fit for appointment. Consequently, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of CT (Lab Assistant) from the date other candidates were provided appointment from the list of successful candidates in which the petitioner's name was included. The petitioner shall not be entitled to back-wages but he shall be entitled to his seniority as per his merit. 9. No order as to costs. *******