[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bowdhya Swaroop Semil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2794 of 2024
BOWDHYA SWAROOP SEMIL
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Surendra Pal Singh - Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
{Delivered on 11th the day of December, 2025}
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order
dated 04-11-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.8078 of 2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
(hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner appeared in the
examination for recruitment of constable (GD) conducted by M.P.
Professional Examination Board and cleared the examination. After
passing the examination, respondents issued posting order to the
petitioner and then he joined in the office of Superintendent of
Police, District Guna. After joining, S.P. Guna sent the petitioner for
medical examination before Zila Ikai Level Guna in which he was
found fit. As per the Medical Board, height of the petitioner was
found 173" and the chest was 80-85'', as mentioned in Annexure
P/1. Thereafter, respondent No.2 sent the petitioner to Medical
Board Guna, where the petitioner was found unfit due to flatfoot
(FF). Thereafter, petitioner was sent for medical examination before
the Divisional Medical Board, Gwalior and he was declared unfit in
the measurement of the chest i.e. 80-85''. Then he was sent to the
State Medical Board, Bhopal, where, he was again declared unfit by
marking his chest 83-88". Thus, vide order dated 19.02.2015
petitioner's candidature has been rejected for the post of police
constable (GD). Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred
writ petition before learned Writ Court and since his writ petition
was dismissed, therefore, he is before this Court.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that despite
the petitioner being selected for the post of constable, his
candidature has been rejected on the ground of him being flatfoot
and chest expansion was not befitting the norms of selection while
petitioner has not been examined properly by any of the medical
board properly. Prior to terminating the services of petitioner, no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, thus it is clear cut
violation of natural justice. Learned Writ Court also did not consider
the controversy in correct perspective and dismissed the writ
petition. Thus, prayed for setting aside the orders impugned.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State while supporting the
order passed by learned Writ Court, opposed the prayer and submits
that disability of petitioner was duly assessed by the District
Medical Board, Divisional Medical Board and thereafter by the
State Medical Board and he is found unfit for the post of constable
(GD), therefore, rightly the services of petitioner have been
terminated. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
6. This is a case where petitioner is seeking exception to the order
dated 19-02-2015 passed by the respondents whereby his services
were terminated on the ground him being flatfoot and his chest
expansion was not as per the norms of the selection rules.
Admittedly, petitioner has been examined before three Medical
Boards like District Medical Board, Divisional Medical Board and
State Medical Board and found unfit for the post of constable on the
basis of inadequate physical standards.
7. The selection rules duly prescribe the medical fitness prerequisites
of a candidate and according to those rules, a candidate suffering
from flatfoot is not suitable for the post and chest expansion of
petitioner was also not befitting the physical standards required for
the post of constable (GD) in Police Department. Police Department
is having importance of physical standards as it involves long hours
of standing, prolonged marches, running, carrying loads and
physically demanding field duties. Flatfoot may reduce ability of the
candidate to run, may cause pain or it may lead to early fatigue,
therefore, the candidate who is flatfoot is not suitable for the armed
force or police department. Inadequate chest expansion also falls
within the domain of deficient physical standards as it involves
signs of respiratory dysfunction of the candidate, thus, not suitable
for the post of constable (GD).
8. Court can not sit as an expert body, especially in matters involving
medical fitness, technical expertise and specialized recruitment
standards. This principle is frequently applied in cases involving
Police, CAPF/Defence recruitment and medical disqualification.
When a specialized authority (such as a medical board) examined a
candidate, the Court will not replace expert findings with its own
view. The Delhi High Court in the case of Akash Sharma Vs.
Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 536 held that
medical standards for armed forces recruitment fall within the
domain of experts and Courts ought not to interfere unless clear
malafides or procedural defects are established. Relevant discussion
is reproduced as under:
"15. This Court, in its judgment dated 21.12.2020 in Km.
Priyanka vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 10783 of 2020,
has also held that the standard of physical fitness for the
Armed Forces and the Police Forces is more stringent than
for the civilian employment. It was held that it is the doctors
of the Forces who are aware of the demands of duties and
the physical standards required to discharge the same. It was
further held as under:
"8. We have on several occasions observed that the
standard of physical fitness for the Armed Forces and
the Police Forces is more stringent than for civilian
employment. We have, in Priti Yadav Vs. Union of
India2020 SCC OnLine Del 951; Jonu Tiwari Vs.
Union of India2020 SCC OnLine Del 855; Nishant
Kumar Vs. Union of India2020 SCC OnLine Del 808
and Sharvan Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC
OnLine Del 924, held that once no mala fides are
attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well
aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the
terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to
work, have formed an opinion that a candidate is not
medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or
other government doctors to the contrary cannot be
accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are
required to work for the Forces and not for the private
doctors or the government hospitals and which
medical professionals are unaware of the demands of
the duties in the Forces."
9. Here, in the present case, petitioner has medically been examined by
the three Medical Boards and they do not find the physical standards
of petitioner befitting to the service of a constable (GD) and
petitioner himself is not able to point out any flaw in the findings of
the Medical Boards, therefore, no case for interference is made out.
10. If the appointment order of petitioner is seen, then it would be clear
that it was the appointment subject to physical verification of the
petitioner. Therefore, condition so stipulated in appointment order
itself suggests that it was mandatory. Thus, learned Writ Court
rightly passed the order declining interference in the writ petition
preferred by the petitioner in the following manner:
"From plain reading of the aforesaid circular issued by
the Police Headquarters, it is clear that before sending a
candidate to the Distt. Medical Board, the concerned unit
was required to measure height as well as chest and
measurement was to be mentioned in the letter of request
to the Distt. Medical Board. Although as per Annexure
P/7, the petitioner has been declared fit and his height
has been measured as 173 Centimeters and chest 81
Centimeters and after extension 86 Centimeters, as per
the medical examination conducted by the Distt. Medical
Board, the petitioner was found unfit on the basis of flat
foot (FF) and as per the Divisional Medical Board, he
was again declared unfit and his measurement of the
chest was not found as per the minimum eligible criteria
laid down in the advertisement issued by the Police
Headquarters. Again by the State Medical Board, the
petitioner was declared unfit. Learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.1401 of 2022 (Suraj Sharma Vs. The State of M.P.
and others) on 31st July 2024."
11. So far as non affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is
concerned, since petitioner appeared before the three Medical
Boards, therefore, there arises no question of non affording of
opportunity of hearing. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again held
that opportunity of hearing is not an unruly horse and principle of
Audi Alteram Partem has its own sanctity and the said principle of
natural justice is not to be put in straitjacket formula. Here no such
occasion existed to hold that principle of natural justice is violated.
12. Issuance of writ of mandamus is discretionary relief and cannot be
invoked in the given fact situation of the case. Violation of any
fundamental or legal right is not palpably found in the case to issue
writ of mandamus which is discretionary in nature nor any omission
of legal duty is found on the part of respondents' authority.
13. Considering the rival submission and the discussion surfaced in the
order of learned Writ Court, it appears that no case for interference
is made out. Petitioner failed to establish his case as no adverse
inference can be drawn against the medical examination conducted
by the Medical Boards in relation to physical standards of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is
hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is
hereby dismissed.
14. Appeal stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2025.12.11 15:42:32
+05'30'
