Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 410 (RAJ)

Gurjar Rajveer Singh v. Union Of India

2021-02-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner vied for the post of Constable GD (General Duty) pursuant to advertisement dated 21.07.2018, issued by Staff Selection Commission. 2. The petitioner having cleared written and physical test, was examined by the Medical Board on 31.01.2020 and was declared unfit due to (i) Eye Squint (ii) X-ray Chest PA View -Fibro calcified lesion seen in left upper, mid zone possibility of old Koch's; whereafter petitioner applied for review medical examination and vide its report dated 14.10.2020, he was declared unfit, this time on account of 'squint'. 3. Petitioner approached this Court with an assertion that there is no problem in his eyes and in support thereof, he has submitted a certificate dated 31.01.2021, issued by Doctor of Gangapur City. 4. Upon considering the material on record and having regard to the circumstances in which order dated 25.01.2021 was passed in case of Vikas Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SBCWP No.10612/2020), this Court passed following interim order dated 10.02.2021 :- "1. The petitioner has approached this Court with an assertion that rejection of petitioner's candidature by Recruitment Board of the respondents on the ground of having squinted eyes, is illegal and contrary to facts. 2. In support of his assertion, the petitioner has placed certificate dated 31.01.2021 issued by a Doctor of Gangapur City (Annex.AA/1). 3. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made a prima-facie case that he be re-examined by an independent Medical Board. 4. The petitioner shall hand over a demand draft of Rs. 20,000/- drawn in the name of Welfare Fund, IG, BSF, Jodhpur to Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG on or before 12.02.2021. 5. The Director/Superintendent of Composite Hospital, BSF, Jodhpur shall constitute a Medical Board consisting two Medical Officers (out of which at least one must be an Ophthalmologist) for examining the petitioner's fitness, qua the deficiency pointed out by the Medical Board i.e., more particularly squinted eyes. 6. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of the order instant alongwith the proof of having tendered the demand draft to Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit before the Director/Superintendent of Composite Hospital, BSF, Jodhpur, who shall then constitute a Medical Board before whom the petitioner will appear at 11:00 a.m. on 15.02.2021. 7. 6. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of the order instant alongwith the proof of having tendered the demand draft to Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit before the Director/Superintendent of Composite Hospital, BSF, Jodhpur, who shall then constitute a Medical Board before whom the petitioner will appear at 11:00 a.m. on 15.02.2021. 7. In case, petitioner's assertion is found incorrect, the demand draft aforesaid, shall be remitted to Welfare Fund, IG, BSF, Jodhpur for encashment, else, appropriate order will be passed by this Court, while deciding the present writ petition. 8. List this case on 17.02.2021." 5. In compliance of the interim order, the petitioner has produced a Banker's cheque (No.286892) dated 12.02.2021, drawn on State Bank of India for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, and the petitioner was examined by Review Medical Board. 6. As expected by the petitioner, the Review Medical Board vide its report dated 15.02.2021 has found the petitioner fit. 7. A copy of the report in original and aforesaid demand draft has been placed for perusal of the Court. 8. As the petitioner has been found fit, respondents are directed to return the demand draft to the petitioner as observed in interim order dated 10.02.2021. The said check has been handed over to the petitioner's counsel Mr. KPS Bhati during the Court proceedings itself. 9. The medical report dated 01.02.2020 & 14.10.2020 are hereby quashed; writ petition is allowed, while recording appreciation for the fairness the Medical Board has showed. Such approach reinvigorates faith in armed forces and the very justice delivery system. 10. The respondents are directed to provide appointment to the petitioner, if he is meritorious and otherwise eligible. 11. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from today. 12. Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.