Mehra Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12469 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12469 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mehra Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 August, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5850/2020

1. Mehra Ram S/o Shri Mala Ram Ji, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jai - Bhawani, Traders, Bhadwasia, Jodhpur- 342001, Rajasthan.

2. Dharmraj Choudhary S/o Shri Shivji Ram Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village - Bagri, Post Lamb Hari Singh, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Commissioner, Police Range, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, R/o H.no.

832/e Mandir Wali Gali, Lokhan Road, Police Line Ajmer, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Bissa
                               Mr. Anant Kumar, Additional S. P.,
                               Police Headquarter, Udaipur.



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                Judgment

10/08/2021

1. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the

petitioners so also respondent No.5 had vied for the post of

Constable (GD) pursuant to the recruitment notification dated

14.07.2013.

(2 of 5) [CW-5850/2020]

2. In the original result declared on 11.07.2016, respondent

No.5 and another candidate namely Mahendra Singh were

selected, whereas the petitioners could not find place in the select

list.

3. Pursuant to recommendation of Review Board in terms of

standing order No.04/2013 dated 29.06.2013 a revised merit list

dated 02.05.2017 was issued. Consequently, the petitioners came

in merit list, whereas respondent No.5 - Dharmendra Singh and

one Mahendra Singh were pushed out of the select list.

4. Pursuant to revised merit list/order dated 12.06.2017, the

petitioners were called for medical examination, which was held

on 20.06.2017. Petitioners have asserted that thereafter they did

not hear anything from the respondents.

5. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court

seeking directions to the respondents to issue appointment

order(s) to them.

6. The respondents have come with the reply (dated

10.02.2021) that the petitioners were found medically unfit and

thus, appointment orders were not issued to them.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that, they were never

informed about their rejection on medical ground or otherwise.

According to the petitioners, they are/were medically fit and the

respondents have come with the false plea regarding they being

unfit at such belated stage, just to deprive them of their rights.

8. As against this, the respondents have failed to show that the

petitioners were ever informed about their medical issues and

consequential cancellation of their appointment.

9. As a result of the medical examination conducted in the year

2017, the petitioner No.2 - Dharmraj Choudhary was found unfit

(3 of 5) [CW-5850/2020]

on account of deficiency in colour vision, whereas petitioner No.1

- Mehra Ram was found fit.

10. Vide order dated 06.07.2021, this Court had directed the

respondents to conduct petitioners' medical examination. While

observing thus :

"1. The respondents have filed a reply inter alia contending that Mehra Ram and Dharmraj Choudhary, petitioners No.1 & 2 respectively in SBCWP No.5850/2020 were found medically unfit.

2. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, invites Court's attention towards reports (Annex.1 & 2) filed with the reply and argues that the petitioners have concealed the factum of having been declared medically unfit in the memo of writ petition, for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. In response to Mr. Bissa's argument regarding concealment of fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were called for medical examination on 20.06.2017 and were never informed about the result of medical examination and thus, they were under the bonafide belief that respondents have withheld their appointment regardless of their eligibility.

4. After hearing rival counsel at some length, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to conduct petitioners' medical examination afresh.

5. The petitioner shall get a demand draft of Rs.10,000/- drawn in the name of Superintendent of Police, Udaipur and hand over the same to him/his office on or before 12.07.2021.

6. On furnishing the same, the Superintendent of Police shall ensure conducting of petitioners' medical examination (particularly for parameters on which they were declared unfit) at Maharana Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur.

(4 of 5) [CW-5850/2020]

7. It will be required of the Superintendent of Police to inform the concerned petitioners about the date and time on which they will be required to be present for medical examination at Maharaja Bhupal Govt. Hospital, Udaipur, on their respective mobile number i.e. 8952933373 (Mehra Ram) & 6367582710 (Dharmraj).