Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the denial of admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course-2024 under the Armed Forces Medical Services, solely on the ground that petitioner’s hemoglobin fell below the prescribed level as a result of blood loss due to menstruation, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., found merit in the petitioner’s case and directed the respondents to admit her in the B.Sc. (Nursing) course in any of the Nursing Colleges under the Armed Forces Medical Services, against the one seat kept vacant in compliance with the interim order.
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a 19-year-old aspirant for admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course-2024 under the Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS), approached the Court after she was declared “unfit” during her medical examination by both the Special Medical Board (SMB) and the Appellate Medical Board (AMB) on the ground of low hemoglobin. It was contended that her hemoglobin level had temporarily dropped due to menstruation-related blood loss.
Pursuant to Court’s interim order dated 07-10-2024, a Review Medical Board was constituted which subsequently found the petitioner to be “fit for Anemia”. Meanwhile, by another interim order dated 15-10-2024, the Court directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant in the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, which remained unfilled till the date of final hearing.
The petitioner contended that she had successfully cleared the screening process. It was stated that her low hemoglobin was a temporary condition induced by heavy menstruation (menorrhagia), a common health occurrence in women. It was argued that upon the Court’s direction, a review medical examination found her medically fit. It was further asserted that as the seat reserved pursuant to the Court’s order was still vacant, denial of admission would be unjust.
However, the respondents contended that a total of 18 candidates were declared “unfit” due to low hemoglobin by the SMB and subsequently by the AMB. It was argued that there is no provision for a review medical examination under the applicable norms. It was contended that granting admission based on the review would prejudice the rights of similarly situated candidates. It was lastly contended that the course has already commenced in January 2025, and late admission will disrupt the academic schedule.
The Court noted that anemia, caused by heavy menstrual bleeding, is a temporary and treatable condition and not a permanent disability. The Court stated that the petitioner’s medical disqualification occurred within a narrow timeframe of 24 hours, reinforcing the possibility of transient physiological fluctuation.
“Anemia affects a person’s red blood cells and hemoglobin… It can be a temporary condition and symptoms can vary from person to person.”
The Court further noted that the Review Medical Board, created under the Court’s directive, found her “fit for Anemia”, and considered this opinion as decisive. The Court stated that “among all these opinions, the opinion of the Review Medical Board would prevail.”
“Menstrual cycle should not be treated as a barrier to the education of any girl child like the petitioner. Denying education on the basis of health concerns, arising due to menstruation is unacceptable. Every girl deserves equal education opportunities regardless of the health challenges, she may face.”
The Court asserted that the petitioner had acted with diligence in asserting her rights, unlike the other candidates who accepted the findings passively. The Court further emphasised that since there remained a vacant seat as per Court’s prior directive, the petitioner’s admission is administratively feasible.
The Court allowed the writ petition with direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course in any of the Nursing Colleges under the AFMS where one seat was lying vacant. The Court directed that this order is to be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy.
[Sakshi Choudhary v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15736/2024, Decided on 15-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Punit Singhvi with Mr. Ayush Singh, Ms. Shraddha Mehta, Mr. Madhur Shrivastava and Mr. Mihir Jangid, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Manjeet Kaur and Ms. Srishti Arora (OIC), Counsel for the Respondents
