Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Nirmal Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 20 October, 2022

Bench: Rekha Borana

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15100/2017 Nirmal Patidar Son of Ishwar Lal Patidar, Resident of Village Post Raiyana, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core, Kherwara District Udaipur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. K.P. Raj Singh Deora
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC



            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                        Order

20/10/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for re-

examination of the eyes of the petitioner by the respondent

Authorities for the purpose of his consideration for appointment on

the post of Police Constable.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied in

pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.02.2016 and after

selection, he was subjected to medical examination. The first

medical examination was conducted on 04.05.2017 whereby he

was found unfit on the ground of defective colour vision. Based on

the said medical report, the selection of the petitioner was

cancelled vide order dated 02.06.2017. The petitioner then moved

an application before the respondent Authorities for re-

examination of his eyes and acting upon the same, the re-

(2 of 5) [CW-4690/2018]

examination was conducted by the Medical Board on 31.10.2017.

The Medical Board reported as under:

'Unfit due to Colour Vision Defective & Vision'

Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has

been filed.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that on the very next day of the cancellation of the candidature of

the petitioner, he got his eyes examined from private hospital on

03.06.2017 which reported that the colour vision of his both eyes

was normal. Further, he got his eyes examined at the Government

Hospital at Dungarpur on 13.07.2017 and according to the said

Report also no defect in colour vision was detected. He submitted

that the petitioner got his eyes examined even at the Government

Hospital at Udaipur on 06.11.2017 and according to the said

Report also his colour vision was normal in both the eyes. Further

as per the Report dated 13.02.2018 of the AIIMS Jodhpur also his

colour vision was found to be normal. It has therefore been

submitted that the Reports of the Private as well as the

Government Hospitals right from the date of the cancellation of his

selection till the year 2018 specified his colour vision to be normal

for both eyes and therefore, the petitioner deserves a re-

examination of eyes from a Medical Board to be constituted at his

cost. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment as passed in the

case of Ajay Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.934/2016), decided on 02.12.2016.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that on the application submitted by the petitioner, the re-

examination of the eyes of the petitioner was conducted by a

Medical Board duly constituted and as per the Report of the

(3 of 5) [CW-4690/2018]

Medical Board his colour vision was found to be defective and

consequently, he was found unfit to be appointed as a Police

Constable. He further submitted that the medical examinations at

the instance of the petitioner himself from Government and

Private Hospitals would be of no consequence as his eyes have

been examined twice by the competent Eye Specialists and

therefore, in view of the judgment as passed in the case of

Kishan Dan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.7739/2008), decided on 01.12.2021, the

cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner is completely

valid.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

It is clear on record that the candidature of the petitioner

was cancelled on 02.06.2017 and on the very next day, he got his

eyes examined at a Private Hospital and further at a Government

Hospital just within a span of a week. According to Reports of both

the medical examinations, his colour vision was found to be

normal. Further, even subsequently till the year 2018 specific

Reports of different Government Hospitals have been placed on

record specifying the colour vision of the petitioner to be normal.

It is therefore, a case wherein there are different opinions of the

medical practitioners/specialist available on record regarding the

colour vision of the petitioner.

In Ajay Singh's case, the Court had observed as under:

"Though the result of the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh, showing the petitioner as fit having 6/6 vision in both the eyes by itself cannot be taken as final, the fact that there is such variation in the two reports, the same necessarily gives rise

(4 of 5) [CW-4690/2018]

to doubt in the mind of the petitioner regarding the manner in which the examination has taken place and, therefore, in those circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is subjected to examination by a Medical Board to be constituted by the respondents and based on the report of the said Medical Board a decision in this regard is taken by the respondents."

So far as the ratio laid down in Kishan Dan's case is

concerned, the said issue was also dealt in Ajay Singh's case and

it was held as Under:

"So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents regarding repeated examinations being made is concerned, it is true that there must be end to examination and re- examination as the candidate who has failed in the medical test would never be satisfied, however, as to whether a person should be re-examined or not is always depend on the circumstances of the each case. As noticed in the present case the variation in two reports, one by the Medical Board of the respondent-Department and other in the report of the PBM Hospital, is huge and give rise to reasonable doubt and, therefore, in those circumstances, the present case having extraordinary circumstances, the re-examination needs to be done."

In view of the observations made in Ajay Singh's case and

in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, this

Court finds it essential to get the petitioner re-examined by a duly

constituted Medical Board. Since there is a conflict between the

opinion of different medical hospitals and the Medical Board

constituted by the respondents, in the interest of justice, the

respondents are directed to constitute one more Medical Board

comprising of Doctors who were not a party in the earlier Medical

Board. However, it is made clear that the opinion of the Medical

Board to be constituted by the respondents in pursuance to this

(5 of 5) [CW-4690/2018]

order shall be final and binding upon the petitioner. Learned