Gujarat High Court
Chauhan Subhadraba Kalusinh vs Director General Of Police on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/100/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 100 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
CHAUHAN SUBHADRABA KALUSINH
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 02/05/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Krutik Parikh
learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent State.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the
C/SCA/100/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
respective parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
3. The petitioner aspired to be appointed as Armed
Police and SRP-Lok Rakshak. She applied pursuant
to advertisement dated 15.08.2018. She cleared her
written and physical examinations. The petitioner
was thereafter called for medical examination on
21.05.2020 at GMERS General Hospital,
Himmatnagar. The petition is filed by the petitioner
on being aggrieved by the communication dated
27.11.2020, by which, for the post of Armed Mahila
Lok Rakshak, she has been declared unfit.
4. Ms.Vyas learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that while the petitioner was working in the
field, she received injuries on the portion which
required for balancing her eye-ball. This was
therefore a temporary handicap. On medical
examination, she was diagnosed with the vision
without glass in the right eye 6/12 and left eye 6/6.
She went for an eye surgery at Dr. Nagpal's Hospital
at Ahmedabad, where the surgery was conducted
C/SCA/100/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
and on 29.09.2020, after surgery she was advised
rest for 15 days. A representation was made on
22.10.2020 along with a certificate of the doctor to
extend her time for medical examination. After the
impugned order on a medical re-examination done
by the Doctor who operated upon her on 11.12.2020,
the certificate showed her vision as 6/6 in both eyes
and therefore in Ms.Vyas's submission, the
petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Armed
Mahila Lok Rakshak.
5. Learned AGP Mr.Krutik Parikh would submit that
the submission of the petitioner that she had ample
time to take rest post her surgery in September
2020 is misconceived. For perusal of the Court, he
would submit a certificate of Board of Referees of
the M & J Institute of Ophthalmology which
categorically stated that the petitioner had been
examined on 03.06.2020 i.e. much before her period
of rest. A certificate of 20.10.2020 categorically
stated that she was unfit as armed police constable.
Having been so declared as unfit, she was not
C/SCA/100/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
qualified to be appointed on the post in question in
accordance with the Rules in vogue which state that
the visual acuity - unaided vision has to be not less
than 6/6 in one eye and not less than 6/9 in the
other.
6. By the interim orders of this Court dated 11.03.2022
and 29.03.2022, the case was referred to the
Medical Board once again and the certificate of the
Board of Referees is placed on record which is dated
29.03.2022. The certificate reads that the petitioner
has been declared fit as Armed Police Constable.
7. Considering the report of the Medical Board, ends of
justice would be met if the communication dated
27.11.2020 declaring the petitioner as unfit is
quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, it is so quashed and set aside and the
petitioner, in view of the certificate placed on
record, is declared as fit to be appointed as Armed
Mahila Lok Rakshak. The petitioner shall be
appointed to the post in question based on the
C/SCA/100/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
advertisement pursuant to which she applied.
However, it is clarified that as suggested by the
learned AGP and drawing attention to the Rules, it
will be open for the respondents to hold periodical
reexaminations of the petitioner's medical fitness in
context of visual acuity annually for three years
henceforth. Appointment order to the petitioner
shall be issued subject to the aforesaid condition
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
9. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
