Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Banwari Lal Godara vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 6812 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6812 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banwari Lal Godara vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2601/2021

Banwari Lal Godara S/o Daulat Ram Godara, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Rangaisar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, Distt. Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Staff Selection Commission, Through Its Chairman, Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Suresh Joshi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                Judgment

09/03/2021


1. The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable GD

pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 21.07.2018.

2. Having cleared the written examination, the petitioner was

subjected to medical examination by the respondents in which he

was found unfit for 'knock-knee' and a report dated 27.01.2020 of

Medical Board came to be issued in this regard.

3. The petitioner applied for Review Medical Board, in

furtherance whereof, he was examined by the Review Medical

Board and the Review Medical Board also found the petitioner to

be unfit for 'knock knee'.

(2 of 3) [CW-2601/2021]

4. The Review Medical Board, while finding the petitioner

medically unfit for 'knock knee' also found that the petitioner is

having 'divergent squint of both eyes'.

5. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the rejection of his candidature, while placing heavy

reliance on a certificate dated 01.02.2020, issued by Medical

Officer DBH, PDU Medical College Churu.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

respondents have arbitrarily rejected the candidature of the

petitioner and found him unfit; whereas the petitioner is perfectly

fit, which is evident from the report dated 01.02.2020, given by

the Medical Officer of DBH, PDU Medical College, Churu.

7. Mr. Suresh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner also

argued that the Medical Board had found the petitioner unfit for

knock knee, whereas the Review Medical Board has added more

deformity in relation to his eyes, which shows inconsistency of the

respondents.

8. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Assistant Solicitor General

appearing for the Union of India argued that the petitioner has

been found unfit by the Medical Board so also the Review Medical

Board, as he is having deformity in his knee and, thus, this Court

should not interfere in the matter. He relied upon the Division

Bench Judgment dated 09.11.2017, passed in the case of

Hanuman Lal Jat Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, BSF &

Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1259/2017) and argued that

this Court cannot sit over the opinion of the experts.

9. Heard.

(3 of 3) [CW-2601/2021]

10. Having medically examined the petitioner, both - the Medical

Board and the Review Medical Board have found him unfit for

knock knee, while the Review Medical Board also found the

petitioner unfit on the ground of squint eyes. In any case, he has

been found unfit for 'knock knee' by both the Boards.

11. In the opinion of this Court, suitability of a candidate is to be

determined by the respondents and their Medical Officers. This

Court would normally not venture into the exercise of checking

fitness of a candidate or issue directions to carry out medical

examination of a candidate, unless substantial evidence is brought

on record, creating doubt about the assessment made by the

Medical Board/Review Medical Board.

12. Nothing of substance has been brought to the notice of the

Court, warranting interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of

this Court. There is no material/evidence to doubt the report so

furnished by the respondents.

13. In light of the discussion aforesaid and in light of the

judgment of Division Bench in Hanuman Lal Jat (supra), this Court

is not pursuaded to order for medical examination de novo.

14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

15. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 43-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter