Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Sangeet Lodha, J., dismissed a writ petition seeking directions from the Court for re-examination of medical test for the position of Assistant Commandment in Central Police Forces.

The present case arose from a challenge by the petitioner against the action of the respondent declaring the petitioner medically unfit for the position of Assistant Commandant in Central Police Forces (CPFs). The respondent Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the recruitment of Assistant Commandant in CPFs. The petitioner, being already employed as Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), applied for the said post. He underwent the selection process and was declared successful. During the petitioner’s medical examination he was declared unfit on certain grounds. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Review Medical Board, where he was again declared unfit.

The petitioner submitted that he got himself examined separately in his unit by the Medical Officer of CRPF, who certified the petitioner to be fit for appointment on the post of Assistant Commandant. Thereafter, he got himself examined by the Medical Board consisting of civilian doctors who also certified that the petitioner is medically and physically fit and can perform any kind of duty. Thus, it was contended by the petitioner that he was wrongly declared as being physically and medically unfit for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant.

A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents, who stated that the petitioner on being found qualified in Physically Efficiency Test (PET), a detailed medical examination conducted by the CPFs Medical Board consisting of three specialists viz. Physician, Surgeon and Ophthalmologist and was thereafter declared as medically unfit. They reiterated that the Review Medical Board also declared the petitioner as medically unfit.

The Court upon perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the petitioner being declared as medically fit by the Medical Board consisting of civilian doctors merely on the basis of the certificate which does not specify the tests that were conducted by them for examination cannot be considered for the Court to direct for re-examination of the petitioner, more so after a lapse of fifteen years. [Satya Narayan v. Union of India,  2020 SCC OnLine Raj 363, decided on 06-03-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Alok Sharma, J. dismissed the current petition since grievance agitated in the petition was not set forth by the petitioner at the relevant time.

The facts of the case are the petitioner having passed the written examination for appointment to the post of Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 was called for the Physical Standard Test (PST) and thereafter required to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The running track was muddied for reason of heavy rains which resulted in obstructing the petitioner’s performance up-to his potential and his resultant failure thus he sought another opportunity.

The Court dismissed the petition relying on Revant Ram Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No. 13731 of 2018 stated that there was nothing on record to show that any grievance as agitated in this petition was set forth by the petitioner at a relevant time. Further, there was nothing on record to establish that the running conditions of the track at Jaipur when the petitioner’s PET was held, was not suitable for the test being held. [Peetambar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 140, Order dated 14-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Bench of Alok Sharma, J., dismissed a petition filed for a re-examination of the physical test due to the adverse condition of the running track.

The facts of the case are that he having passed the written examination for appointment to the post of Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 appeared for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) which entailed running 5 kms within the prescribed time. At the time the PET under the Rules of 1989 was conducted on 28-8-2018 at Jaipur, the running track was muddied for reason of heavy rains which resulted obstructing the petitioner’s performance up-to-his potential and his failure. The contention of the petitioner was that he should be given another opportunity as was given to several candidates who failed the PET.

The Court dismissing this petition held that the petition was filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about two and a half months and since then the selection process was completed and those appointed were undergoing training. The issue with regard to the condition of track in the course of PET for recruitment was of no event for the purpose of PET. [Veer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 9, Order dated 07-01-2019]