Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Singh vs Director General Indian Coast Guard ... on 4 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5018
1 WP-4103-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4103 of 2018
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COAST GUARD THR. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar- learned Deputy Solicitor General for
the respondents.
ORDER
1 . The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to appoint
him as Navik (G.D.) by treating him fit for such appointment. He has also
prayed for setting-aside the findings recorded by the committee vide
Annexure P/3.
2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by
respondents No.1 and 2 inviting applications for the post of Navik (G.D.) in the
year 2016 and the petitioner submitted his application for appointment. After
having declared successful in the written examination, the petitioner appeared for
physical fitness test wherein he was found unfit because of (a) Exotropia for
Evaluation, (b) Tremor +, (c) Knock Knee. The petitioner was directed to undergo
the review medical examination at Military Hospital, Bhopal (M.P.). In Review
Examination, the petitioner is declared fit so far as Exotropia for Evaluation is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5018
2 WP-4103-2018
concerned. For Knock Knee, he is declared unfit and for Tremor +, he is shown
absent. Thus, in overall evaluation, the petitioner is declared unfit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner was
not at all examined by the Medical Board, therefore, prays for re-examination of
the petitioner.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and
supports the action of the respondents.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5018
3 WP-4103-2018
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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5018
4 WP-4103-2018
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 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.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
