State Of Rajasthan vs Mehra Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 14597 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 846/2022

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
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                     Versus
1.     Mehra Ram S/o Shri Mala Ram Ji, Aged About 27 Years, R/
       o Jai Bhawani, Traders, Bhadwasuia, 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
3.     Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, R/o H.no. 832/
       e Mandir Wali Gali, Lokhan Road, Police Line Ajmer,
       Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S.P. Sharma


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                 Judgment

13/12/2022

BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MATHUR, J.)

The intra court appeal is directed against the order dated

10.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the writ

petition of the respondent Mehra Ram was accepted and the

respondents (appellant-respondents herein) were directed to

(2 of 5) [SAW-846/2022]

appoint him on the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the

notification dated 14.07.2013.

The respondent-petitioner applied for the post of Constable

(GD) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013. In the

final result declared on 11.07.2016, the name of the respondent-

petitioner was not shown in the select list. However, pursuant to

the recommendation of Review Board in terms of standing order

No.04/2013, a revised merit list dated 02.05.2017 was issued and

the respondent-petitioner was called for medical examination. In

the writ petition filed before the learned Single Bench, the

respondent-petitioner submitted that after appearing in the

medical examination, he has not been informed about the result of

medical examination. The respondent-petitioner, thus prayed that

appellant-respondents may be directed to issue appointment order

in his favour. In the reply, filed on behalf of appellant-respondents

it was stated that the petitioner was found medically unfit on

account of Higher Triglyceride Level. Consequently, he is not

eligible to be appointed on the advertised post. Learned Single

Bench vide order dated 06.07.2021 directed Superintendent of

Police, Udaipur to hold respondent-petitioner's medical

examination, particularly for parameters on which he was declared

unfit, at the Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur.

Pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Bench, a medical

examination of respondent-petitioner's was conducted and in the

medical report dated 22.07.2021, his Triglyceride Level was found

well within the parameters prescribed by the appellant-

respondent's department for recruitment on the post of Constable

(GD). In view of aforesaid, the learned Single Bench directed

appellant department to issue appointment order in favour of

(3 of 5) [SAW-846/2022]

respondent-petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a

period of one week from the date of order.

Being aggrieved thereof, the instant intra court appeal was

preferred by a delay of 251 days.

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been

filed to condone the delay. The grounds set out in the application

for condonation of delay are quoted hereinbelow for the sake of

ready reference:-

"1. That the above mentioned special appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.08.2021.

2. That after obtaining of the legal opinion the matter was forwarded to the Secretary and thereafter the matter was placed before the Pre Litigation Committee. Thereafter it was decided to prefer the appeal in the order and the matter was forwarded to the Law Department for sanction of Special Appeal, which accordingly was granted.

3. That delay in filing the special appeal is unintentional and bona fide and an important question of law is involved in the case which has a far reaching effect and therefore in interest of justice, this application of condonation of delay may be allowed."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran

Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556 was pleased to

observe that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even

appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the

same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the

law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to

be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and

the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on

equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising

(4 of 5) [SAW-846/2022]

discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to exercise

discretion judiciously.

In the present case, the application for condonation of delay

does not furnish sufficient or satisfactory explanation for

condonation of a huge delay of 251 days in preferring the instant

intra court appeal. The reasons furnished for condonation of delay,

are totally unconvincing. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed

on the ground of delay itself.

Despite that, the merits of the case have been examined by

us.

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the

appellant-respondents on 20.06.2017 appeared before the Medical

Board constituted by the respondent department for physical

examination. The medical board in this report opined that

respondent-petitioner is of sound health and good physique, and

all his vital systems are functioning normally and also he is not

physically or mentally suffering from any disability. However a

note was appended in the medical report which reads as under:-

"Temporary unfit due to high Triglyceride level (424)."

It appears to us that the learned Single Bench taking into

consideration the aforesaid findings of the Medical Board, in

particular the fact that all the parameters set out by the appellant

department for recruitment on the post of Constable (GD) have

been found normal except the abnormally high Triglyceride level

directed the appellant-respondents vide order dated 06.07.2021 to

re-conduct the medical examination of the respondent-petitioner

at the Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur.

(5 of 5) [SAW-846/2022]

It is not in dispute before us that in the medical examination

report dated 22.07.2021 prepared by Maharana Bhupal

Government Hospital, Udaipur under the directions of the learned

Single Bench dated 06.07.2021, the Triglyceride Level was found

well within the parameters set out by the appellant department for

recruitment on the post of Constable (GD). Hence, it is not a case

where the respondent-petitioner can be denied appointment on

the ground of him being unfit for the post of Constable (GD).

Consequently, we find no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the learned Single

Bench warranting interference therein. The intra court appeal is

thus dismissed as being time barred and also on merits.

No order as to costs.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                       (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                   36-Ravi Kh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)