Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4892
1 WP-3567-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 4th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3567 of 2014
AMIT KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pawan Kumar Dwivedi - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar- learned Deputy Advocate 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 Constable (G.D.) by treating him fit for such
appointment. He has also prayed for setting-aside the findings recorded
by the Authorities vide Annexures P/3 and P/7.
2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement
issued by respondent No.3, he had applied for appointment on the post of
Constable (G.D.) in Central Reserve Police Force in Assam Rifles in the
year 2013. After successfully completing the examination, the petitioner was
called for the medical examination scheduled on 10/01/2014. He appeared
for medical examination wherein the Senior Medical Officer declared him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4892
2 WP-3567-2014
unfit on the ground that he is having Dextrocardia. The report of Senior
Medical Officer is placed on record as Annexure P/3. The petitioner being
aggrieved suo moto got himself examined by specialist Dr. Nagendra
Rishishwar of Government District Hospital who though confirmed that the
petitioner is having Dextrocardia, but opined that he is fit for any job. The
opinion of Dr. Rishishwar is filed as Annexure P/4.
3. After having favourable report of Dr. Rishishwar, the petitioner
made an application for re-examination by the Review Medical Board.
Accepting the petitioner's request, he was again examined by the Board on
23/03/2014 wherein he was again found unfit for having Dextrocardia.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having Dextrocardia
is not a disease and is only a heart condition which means one born with this
abnormality. It is the submission that in Dextrocardia, heart of the person is
located in the right side instead of left side of the chest. Thus, he submits
that because of having Dextrocardia, he is not incapable of discharging the
duties of the post.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the action
of the respondents and submits that in the opinion of the medical board, the
petitioner is not found fit for the post of Constable (G.D.). He submits that
opinion of the medical board cannot be substituted by another doctor who
has independently examined the petitioner on his own request.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4892
3 WP-3567-2014
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."
7. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4892
4 WP-3567-2014
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."
8. This Court also had an occasion to examine this issue in the case
of 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."
9. 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 merely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4892
5 WP-3567-2014
because, the petitioner has got himself examined by another doctor
independently who has opined that the petitioner is fit. The petitioner cannot
be held fit for the post. 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 the same cannot
be substituted by the opinion of any independent doctor. 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
