Manohar Bhambhu vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 8771 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8771 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manohar Bhambhu vs Union Of India on 5 April, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5293/2021

Manohar Bhambhu S/o Shri Sukha Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kalri, Tehsil And District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Director General, Border Security Force, Communication And It Directorate, First Floor, Block No. 04, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

3. The Chief Medical Officer (Sg), 114 Bn, Border Security Force, Jodhpur.

4. The Medical Board, Border Security Force, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. SS Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                Judgment

05/04/2021

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for

following reliefs:-

"(i) The Memorandum dated 26.09.2020 (Annex.3) as well as the Review medical Examination Report dated 09.01.2021 (Annex.7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner as fit for appointment on the post of HC (RO)/HC (RM) and to grant him appointment on the said post.

(iii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and

(iv) the cost the the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner."

(2 of 5) [CW-5293/2021]

2. The facts appertain to the present purposes are that the

petitioner applied for the post of Head Constable, pursuant to

advertisement dated 15.04.2019.

3. Having cleared the written examination and physical

efficiency test, the petitioner underwent medical examination, in

which he was declared unfit by the Medical Board constituted by

the respondents on 26.09.2020, as petitioner is having following

issues:-

"1. Pilonidal Sinus on Sacrum

2. Dental Points - 09 (Artificial molar & Premolar

Teeth)"

4. Against the report aforesaid, the petitioner applied for

Review Medical Board. The Review Medical Board also found the

petitioner unfit, however with the observation as under:-

"Coagulated Shallow Sinus at natal cleft"

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

respondents' decision of declaring petitioner unfit is contrary to

facts and law.

6. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel

invited Court's attention towards the report dated 29.09.2020

issued by General Surgeon of J.L.N. Government Hospital, Nagaur

and submitted that, there is no evidence of active fistula or

abscess in perianal region.

7. He, thus, argued that in view of the above report which has

been prepared by a General Surgeon, petitioner deserves to be

declared fit and the respondents' reports are liable to be

ignored/set aside.

8. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing

for the respondents argued that, petitioner has been found unfit

(3 of 5) [CW-5293/2021]

by Medical Board so also by Review Medical Board. While pointing

out that Review Medical Board was comprised of a Surgeon (CH,

BSF), he argued that the fitness of a candidate is better left to be

determined by the respondents/employer.

9. While relying upon the Division Bench judgment dated

09.11.2017 rendered in case of Hanuman Lal Jat Vs. Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Border Security Forces & Ors.(DBSAW

No.1259/2017), learned counsel argued that the High Court

cannot become an appellate authority over the report furnished by

the competent Medical Board of the respondents.

10. Heard.

11. In the report of Medical Board, petitioner was found unfit

with respect to his problem in Dental Points also, however the

Review Medical Board has declared him fit having more than 14

dental points. Nevertheless, Medical Board so also the Review

Medical Board has found the petitioner unfit as the petitioner is

having Pilonidal Sinus or Coagulated Shallow Sinus at natal cleft.

12. So far as petitioner's contention, based upon report given by

the surgeon of J.L.N. Government Hospital, Naguar is concerned,

suffice it to mention that the said surgeon has reported that no

evidence of active fistula or abscess in perianal region exists.

13. As far as the petitioner's problem of Pilonidal Sinus on

Sacrum is concerned, since both the Medical Board so also

Review Medical Board has found the petitioner unfit, in the opinion

of this Court, it having practically no knowledge much less

expertise cannot become an appellate authority to adjudge

petitioner's suitability.

14. Scope of interference by writ Court is very limited. Unless a

candidate is able to establish that there was a procedural error in

(4 of 5) [CW-5293/2021]

constitution of Medical Board or there was a telling or apparent

infirmity in the report given by the Medical Board, the High Court

would be loathe in interfering.

15. It has been held by the Division Bench in Hanuman Lal Jat

(supra);

"The Ld. Single Judge taking note of report of the Review Medical Board was not inclined to interfere in its equitable jurisdiction u/Art.26 of the Constitution and after we have heard counsel for the appellant we too are of the view that this Court does not hold any expertise on the subject and report of the Medical Board has to be given its due precedence and that apart it is not case of the appellant that the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board was not constituted as per the mandate/requirement of law or either Member of the Board was biased, in absence whereof what being observed by the Medical Board in its report has to be given its due credence/precendence and we find no reason to interfere unless there is contemporary evidence on record to the contrary and the appellant placed reliance on the certificate issued by a doctor of JLN Hospital, Ajmer who even does not know the kind of job which a constable has to discharge in Border Security Force and his opinion regarding medical fitness will not supersede the view which the Medical Board or the Review Medical Board has expressed & considered by the Ld. Single Judge under its order impugned.