Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Godara vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 October, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10432/2021
Mahendra Godara S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Godara, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Manaksar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Government Of Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its
Chairman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad Bhadu with
Mr. Sameer Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with
Mr. Kailash Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 21/10/2021
Pronounced on 26/10/2021
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant
caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,
for the safety of all concerned
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"i. The Notification/Order dated 22.02.2021 (Annex.8)
(to the extent it relates to the Petitioner herein) and
the consequent Report of the second (Review)
(Downloaded on 26/10/2021 at 09:42:10 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-10432/2021]
Medical Board dated 25.02.2021 (Annex.9) opining
the Petitioner to be "unfit for the said post of SI" may
kindly be quashed and set aside and the
respondent(s) be directed to only consider and uphold
the report dated 05.01.2021 of the initial Medical
Board (Annex.6) read with the report dated
06.01.2021 (titled "Second Medical Opinion) by
Medical Board') of the specialist Ophthalmic Board
(Annex.7) whereby the Petitioner was found to be of
sound health and was declared fit for the said Post;
ii. The Order dated 07.07.2021 whereby
appointments to the said Posts were made by the
respondent Office of DGP, Rajasthan (Annex.10) by
declaring a "First Appointment List" may kindly be
quashed & set aside (to the extent it omits the name
of the Petitioner), and/or may be accordingly modified
by issuing directions to the respondent(s) to give
appointment to the Petitioner for the said Post of Sub
Inspector, in due accordance with the 7th rank secured
by him by including his name in the said "First
Appointment List" at Serial No.7;
iii. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, and in the interest
of equity, justice and good conscience, may kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
recruitment process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement
dated 05.10.2016, for the post of Sub Inspectors for Non-TSP
(General) Areas, is the bone of contention in the present case, as
the petitioner underwent the said process, but during medical
(Downloaded on 26/10/2021 at 09:42:10 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-10432/2021]
examination, his candidature has been rejected on the ground of
being medically unfit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of
this Court towards the two conflicting medical opinions contained
in Rajasthan Police Certificate of Physical Fitness (Annexure-6)
dated 05.01.2021 and Second Medical Opinion (Annexure-7)
dated 06.01.2021 of the Medical Board, in relation to the present
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide
Annexure-6, the Medical Board opined that in general, the
petitioner is fit to enter the government job, but at the same time,
declared him unfit to enter the service on account of colour vision
defect, and accordingly, in regard thereto, the Board has referred
the case of the present petitioner, on 05.01.2021 itself, to another
Medical Board for second opinion.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
thereafter, in its Second Medical Opinion dated 06.01.2021,
another Medical Board observed that the Ishihara Test of the
petitioner reflects presence of partial red-green defect and high
order of colour perception present; although the said Board
declared general fitness of the petitioner, from the ophthalmic
side, for the post in question.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due
to slight confusion and contradiction in the aforesaid two medical
opinions, re-examination of the fitness of the petitioner by another
Medical Board was ordered vide order dated 22.02.2021
(Annexure-8), in pursuance whereof, the petitioner again
(Downloaded on 26/10/2021 at 09:42:10 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-10432/2021]
appeared before the Medical Board; whereupon the Medical Board,
while re-affirming the opinion that as per the visual assessment
criteria, the petitioner is not fit for the post in question, while
indicating in its report the presence of defective colour vision and
absence of high grade colour perception.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments:
(a) Liberty Oil Mills & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(1984) 3 SCC 465.
(b) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212.
(c) Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association
(Regd.) & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (1991) 2
SCC 604.
(d) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner is unable to point out any such
contradiction in the aforementioned medical opinions, which could
substantiate the averment of his complete fitness, in all respects,
for the post in question.
Learned counsel further submitted that even if the facts pleaded
by the petitioner, particularly, the contradictions in the medical
opinions, is believed, then also, the common observation, as
reflected in all the aforementioned medical opinions, regarding
unfitness of the petitioner for the post in question, cannot be lost
(Downloaded on 26/10/2021 at 09:42:10 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-10432/2021]
sight of, owing to the nature of duties, which the post in question
carries.
10. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, especially the aforementioned
medical opinions, this Court finds that the medial experts/medical
boards have given their respective opinion founded, in particular,
on the defective colour vision of the petitioner, which is clearly
discernible, in common, in all the aforementioned medical
opinions. Thus, this Court, under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, is not inclined to make any interference
in this petition, in absence of any cogent or convincing reason
therefor.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
