Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurav Rajak vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
1 WP-1379-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1379 of 2021
SAURAV RAJAK
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devraj Dixit- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar- Deputy Solicitor General for
respondents/UOI.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the findings of
Review Medical Board, wherein, he has been declared as unsuitable for
appointment on the post of Constable (GD). The petitioner has also prayed
for a direction to respondents to consider his appeal for review medical
examination and decide the same on merits after taking into account the
fitness certificate issued in his favour by the Govt. doctor. The petitioner has
further prayed for a direction to respondents to grant him appointment on the
post in question based upon the result in written as well as PST & PET test.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that petitioner
participated in the process of selection for appointment on the post of
Constable (GD) conducted in year 2018. He successfully qualified in written
examination as also physical examination conducted by CRPF, Gwalior. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
2 WP-1379-2021
petitioner was then asked to undergo the medical examination. Initially, he
was examined by the Medical Board, wherein, he was declared unfit on the
ground that he is suffering from Pilonidal Sinus.
3. The petitioner thereafter, got himself examined at Gajraraja Medical
College, Gwalior, wherein, the doctor has advised that no active surgical
intervention is required. The document in this regard has been placed on
record as Annexure P/6. Thereafter, the petitioner also got his MRI done at a
private Radiology Centre at Gwalior. The report in this regard is placed at
page no. 23 alongwith the writ petition. He then requested the respondents to
conduct a review medical examination based upon the opinion of doctor of
Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior and the MRI report.
4. The request of petitioner was accepted and he was asked to appear at
ITBP, Shivpuri on 16/9/2020. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and was
examined at ITBP, Shivpuri. It is not disputed by petitioner's counsel that the
opinion of doctor at Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior as also the MRI
report dated 24/1/2020 was placed by him before the Review Medical Board.
After considering the aforesaid opinion of doctor as well as the MRI report,
the Review Medical Board has reiterated the same opinion of petitioner
being unfit on account of Pilonidal Sinus. The opinion of Review Medical
Board is placed on record as Annexure P/1 alongwith the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid opinion
of Review Medical Board, submitted that the doctor at Gajraraja Medical
College, Gwalior has declared him fit for the job. He also placed reliance
upon another opinion by another doctor of District Hospital, Shivpuri, placed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
3 WP-1379-2021
on record as Annexure P/10, wherein, the doctor has declared him fit for job.
He therefore, submitted that based upon such report, the respondents be
directed to conduct a review medical examination of the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Aditya Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors.
(W.P. No. 8692/2020), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in the case
of Union of India Vs. Sonu Rathore, (W.A.No. 1182/2020) .
6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned action of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner has
been examined twice and has bene found unfit for appointment on the post in
question. He submitted that there is no reason for directing review medical
examination of the petitioner only on the basis of the opinion given by the
doctor at District Hospital, Shivpuri. He placed reliance upon the order
passed this this Court in the case of Amit Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India
and Ors., (W.P.No. 3567/2014) and Shailendra Singh Vs. Director General
Indian Coast Guard and Ors., (W.P.No. 4103/2018) and submitted that the
opinion of Expert Medical Board cannot be substituted by any doctor, who
has independently examined the petitioner on his own request.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
8. The petitioner participated in process for appointment on the post of
Constable (GD) in ITBP. Admittedly, he has been examined twice, firstly by
the Medical Board and secondly, by the Review Medical Board, wherein, he
has been declared unsuitable for appointment on the post in question on the
ground of his suffering from Pilonidal Sinus. The challenge to the action of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
4 WP-1379-2021
respondents is made by the petitioner based upon the opinion given by the
doctor at Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior dated 22/1/2020 (Annexure
P/8). If this opinion is seen, the doctor only opined that "no active surgical
intervention required". Prima facie this opinion would not mean that the
petitioner is not suffering with the disability pointed out by the Medical
Board. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the MRI report dated
24/1/2020. Admittedly, both the aforesaid documents were placed before the
Review Medical Board and after considering the same, the opinion has been
reiterated. The petitioner then placed reliance upon the opinion of the doctor
at District Hospital, Shivpuri dated 7/9/2020 (Annexure P/10). Even though,
the doctor has declared him fit for work, however, the petitioner could not
justify this opinion as no test was admittedly conducted before giving this
certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
had produced the MRI report before the doctor. If that being so, the MRI
report is also being considered by the Review Medical Board and if out of
two opinions, one is to be accepted, it has to be the opinion given by the
ITBP, Shivpuri.
9. As regards, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the decisions rendered in the case of Aditya Kumar (supra) and
Sonu Rathore (supra), it is gathered that in that case, the competence of the
doctor, who has given the opinion was questioned. Considering the issue
involved in the said case, the direction for review medical examination was
issued. However, in the present case, there is no challenge to the expertise of
the doctors of Medical Board as well as Review Medical Board.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
5 WP-1379-2021
10. This Court had an occasion to consider the same issued in the case
of Amit Kumar Sharma (supra) and Shaildendra Singh (supra) . This Court in
the aforesaid two cases held as under:-
"5. The Apex Court in the case of the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research and Ors. Vs. Shashi Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 1241, has
examined the scope of interference of the Court in the matter of
medical examination of the candidates to judge his suitability. In
paragraph 7, the Court has held as under:-
"7. We do not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by
the tribunal. We are of the view that once the medical board and the
Appellate Medical Board found the respondent medically unfit for the
post of Scientist Grade S the tribunal had no jurisdiction whatsoever to
have got over the medical opinions and directed her appointment to
the Service. The Tribunal out-stepped its jurisdiction and acted with an
utter perversity. Medical fitness is the sine qua non for appointment to
public services. It is the inherent right of an employer to be satisfied
about the medical fitness of a person before offering employment to
him/her."
6. Again in the case of State Bank of India Vs. G.K. Deshak, AIR
1993 SC 2447, the Court in para 3 has held as under:-
"3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The
medical opinion which is on the records of the case, clearly indicates
that the defect in his eyes is very serious and he is unfit for the post.
He was allowed to join in obedience to the writ issued by the High
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
6 WP-1379-2021
Court. The reasons given in the impugned judgment indicate that the
High Court took upon itself to decide the question of medical fitness
of the respondent and on reaching a conclusion in favour of the
respondent, preferred the same as against the medical opinion of the
specialist doctor. It is significant to note that it is not suggested on
behalf of the respondent that the authorities of the appellant State Bank
of India have acted mala fide or with any malice against the
respondent. In the circumstances, we do not approve of the approach
adopted by the High Court in allow the writ petition."
7. This Court also had an occasion to examine this issue in the case
o f Lokesh Gurjar Vs. Union of India and others in W.P.
No.22424/2023, this Court has held as under:-
"Considering the rival submissions and the fact that prescription of
such medical condition lie in the domain of authorities concerned and
respondents intend to employ the aspirants as per their requirement
over field. In such matter where two authorities Medical Board as well
as Review Medical Board have considered the medical condition of the
petitioner in detail, then this Court under the Jurisdiction of Article
226 of Constitution of India cannot super impose its view. Hence,
petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed."
8. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court and by
this Court in the aforesaid cases, I am of the considered opinion that
when two authorities i.e. the Medical Board as well as the Review
Medical Board have examined the petitioner's medical condition and
have found him unfit for the post, this Court cannot sit over the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16670
7 WP-1379-2021
opinion of the experts. there is no reason to accept the petitioner's
contention that he was not examined by the Board as he has not
levelled malafides against anyone. The Medical Board and the Review
Medical Board are constituted by the department for examination the
medical conditions of the candidates for appointment on the posts.
Thus, the opinion of the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board
is final and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot sit as Appellate Court. No relief can be
granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed."
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board as well as the Review
Medical Board. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
