Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devina Kunwar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:14304-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 435/2024
Devina Kunwar D/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Mukam Post Ratanjana, Ward No. 6 Lalpura Road, District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Training, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Additinal Director General Of Police, Recruitment And
Promotion Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Superintendent Of Police, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
Agriculture And Management Institute Building,
Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Dr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG assisted by
Mr. Deepak Chandak
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Judgment
12/03/2025
1. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant (writ
petitioner) against the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3597/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by her,
[2025:RJ-JD:14304-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-435/2024]
challenging rejection of her candidature for the post of Constable
vide communication dated 06.02.2024, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the appellant, in
pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 for recruitment
on the post of Constable, appeared and cleared the written and
physical examinations; whereafter, she was called upon to appear
for medical examination on 17.05.2023. In the medical
examination so conducted on the specified date, the appellant was
declared unfit for the post in question on count of her defective
eye vision.
2.1. Vide communication/order dated 10.07.2023, the appellant
was communicated about rejection of her candidature for the post
in question, followed by another communication dated
08.08.2023, whereby the appellant was called upon to furnish
documents to establish that she has recovered from such ailment.
2.2. The appellant submitted a representation dated 16.08.2023
before the respondents informing that due to her pregnancy, she
could not appear for the review medical examination.
2.3. Subsequently, after four months, the petitioner moved yet
another representation dated 29.12.2023, requesting the
Superintendent of Police, District Pratapgarh to conduct her review
medical examination. In pursuance of such representation, a
communication dated 06.02.2024 was issued by the respondents
informing the appellant about rejection of her candidature for the
post in question on count of her being medically unfit. The said
communication was challenged by the appellant by preferring a
writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, which came to be rejected
[2025:RJ-JD:14304-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-435/2024]
by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court vide the
impugned order dated 15.03.2024.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn
the attention of this Court towards the operative portion of the
impugned order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble Court, which reads as under:
"7. A perusal of petitioner's representation dated
16.08.2023 reveals that she was having nine months of
pregnancy at the relevant time. The petitioner had
submitted along with the said representation, a report
dated 06.03.2023 indicating that she was pregnant.
7. In the opinion of this Court, on 17.05.2023 when the
petitioner was medically examined, then also, she was
pregnant and if she wanted any review medical, request
was to be made within one month of the first medical
examination, which the petitioner had admittedly failed to
do.
8. According to this Court even if the medical ailment with
which the petitioner was suffering, namely defective eye
vision, despite having advance stage of pregnancy, she
could have got herself medically examined. Petitioner's
plea that she was pregnant and hence, could not go for
review medical examination is untenable.
9. The respondent cannot keep waiting for a candidate till
indefinite period. The petitioner woke up from her slumber
only in the month of December, 2023, therefore, no
indulgence can be granted to her.
10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
11. Stay application also stands disposed of."
3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the
relevant time, the appellant was pregnant and thus, her review
medical examination ought to have been conducted by the
respondents for the post in question, after her post delivery
[2025:RJ-JD:14304-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-435/2024]
(pregnancy) recovery, more particularly, when the appellant was
unable to appear for the review medical examination, as required,
due to her pregnancy.
4. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Bhati, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Chandak, appearing on
behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the appellant, submits that it is
writ large on the face of the record that the appellant was sitting
tight over her own rights and did not make any sincere endeavour,
to enable reconsideration and acceptance of her candidature for
the post in question, and thus, in the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly
passed the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant (writ petitioner).
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court takes note of the fact that the recruitment process
for the post in question i.e. Constable, was initiated in pursuance
of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, whereby the appellant
being one of the aspirants, was required to appear for medical
examination on 17.05.2023. In the said medical examination, the
appellant was declared unfit for the post in question due to
defective eye vision, and accordingly, the rejection of her
candidature for the post in question was communicated to the
appellant vide communication/order dated 10.07.2023.
Furthermore, certain documents were sought by the respondents,
[2025:RJ-JD:14304-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-435/2024]
from the appellant to show that she has recovered from the
ailment in question.
7. The appellant moved a representation dated 16.08.2023
before the respondents stating that she was unable to come for
review medical examination on count of her being pregnant,
whereafter she remained silent for four months and had moved a
belated representation dated 29.12.2023, requesting for
conducting the review medical examination qua her.
8. The date of rejection of the appellant's candidature for the
post in question, on count of her being declared unfit in the
medical examination dated 17.05.2023 and the representation
submitted belatedly on 16.08.2023 & 29.12.2023 suggest that
there was no serious effort on the part of the appellant to seek
conducting of her review medical examination, which was on
account of defective eye vision only. The delay in seeking such
relief does not call for any interference.
9. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so
as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeal.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
99-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
