Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the petitioner’s candidature rejection in the medical fitness evaluation process thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., held petitioner’s rejection as discriminatory and directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within 30 days, subject to his eligibility and merit.
In the instant matter, the petitioner applied for the post of Multi-Skilled Worker (MSW) (Mason) in the Border Roads Organization (BRO) under the OBC category. His name appeared on the merit list at Serial No. 161. However, during the primary medical examination, he was declared unfit due to the amputation of 3 mm from the little finger of his left hand. Despite undergoing a review medical examination, the petitioner was again orally informed that he could not be declared fit.
The petitioner argued that the minor defect in his non-dominant hand did not impair his ability to perform the duties of a mason. Furthermore, he presented evidence that another candidate, who had a more significant impairment (amputation of half of the right-hand index finger) and was also right-handed, had been declared fit and was appointed. The petitioner alleged discrimination and challenged the rejection of his candidature.
However, the respondents contended that the medical examination and the petitioner’s rejection was conducted following established procedures. It was stated that the rejection was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory.
The Court found that a similarly situated candidate, with a more significant impairment in his dominant hand, was appointed, highlighting inconsistency in the respondents’ approach. The Court noted that the respondents failed to justify how the minor impairment in the petitioner’s non-dominant hand affected his ability to perform mason duties. The Court asserted that the lack of transparency in the medical board’s process further undermined the fairness of the decision.
“Trite it may sound, but the prudence warrants that what is to be seen for right handed person is if he has any unfitness in the same hand, if not, then does the left hand interfere with the skill of right hand.”
The Court stated that equals must be treated equally and differential treatment without valid justification violates constitutional principles. The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court, hence, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to issue the petitioner an appointment letter within 30 days, provided he is otherwise eligible and meritorious. The Court directed to grant the petitioner notional benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, but no financial benefits for the period of unemployment.
[Arvind Kumar v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6931/2024, Decided on 17-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. S.P. Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Ms. Aditi Sharma and Mr. Prakash Raika, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
