Relief Can't Be Denied Because Authorities Filled Post Despite Pendency Of Plea: P&H HC Directs Appointment Of Constable Wrongly Disqualified In Medical

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that relief cannot be denied to a candidate who was unjustly disqualified for Constable post on medical grounds merely because the State authorities filled the position during the pendency of the plea.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said, "relief cannot be denied to the appellant merely because the respondents have chosen to fill up the posts inspite of pendency of the writ petition and the notices having been served upon them."

The Court said that, "It is at their own risk and cost that they have filled the posts and, therefore, the contention raised by counsel for the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law."

The Court was hearing a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) of a candidate who had applied for Male Constable (General Duty) in 2015 for which notification was issued by the the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC).

Ranbir-petitioner, was successful in both the written as well as physical tests conducted for the purpose. He was sent for medical examination and the Civil Surgeon, referred him to PGIMS, Rohtak for medical examination. Medical report mentioned evidence of 'right dorso lumber spine scoliosis'. The Civil Surgeon based on the said report declared Ranbir unfit on account of having been diagnosed with 'right dorso lumber spine scoliosis.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the appellant that medical condition noted by the PGIMS, Rohtak did not constitute a disqualification or medical unfitness.

aThe respondents filed their reply stating that Ranbir was medically unfit and Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, had clarified so, while indicating the complications and implications which might arise on account of 'right dorso lumber spine scoliosis'.

The Single Judge directed the petitioner to appear before the Director, PGIMS, Rohtak for ascertainment of his medical conditions as also the duration for which he could work in the said condition.

The report was submitted in 2018, stating that the time period of implication or  complication was dependent on many variables and, therefore, it could not be predicted.

Counsel for the appellant contended that in such circumstances, denying the appointment to the appellant was not justified.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the State was asked to produce the medical opinion of the Board of Doctors constituted by the State which was the basis of declaring the appellant unfit.

Perusing the affidavit of Additional Director General of Police, Administration, Haryana, Panchkula, filed along with the report, the Court found that, "two doctors downloaded the complications as available from the books and conveyed it to the authorities and did not give their own opinion."

The medical examination report of the office of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, was also placed on the record where again there is no observation of the doctor for holding the appellant to be unfit, it added.

Examining the medical report, the Bech said, "we only find that while it has been stated that there is evidence of 'right dorso lumber spine scoliosis' and there is no observation of the doctor for treating him unfit."

Speaking for the bench Justice Prakash highlighted that, "it is apparent that while Civil Surgeon, Sirsa has declared the appellant as unfit, no doctor from PGIMS, Rohtak or from PGIMER, Chandigarh has declared him unfit for discharging duties of constable."

"...A specific opinion is required to be given for declaring a person unfit. Merely because of some 15 degree curve in the spine, we cannot say that it is a deformity nor can it be said that there is a finding to deprive him from performing the duties as a constable," the Court added.

The bench pointed that it would not have expertise to declare a particular person fit or unfit, but since a Special Medical Board, consisting of seven doctors from the necessary medical fields, namely Orthopedics, Neurology, Neurosurgery and Internal Medicine, have examined the appellant and "found him fit, denying him the benefit of appointment would be a travesty of justice."

Consequently, the plea was allowed and the Court directed to give benefit to him notionally from the date the candidates lower in merit from him have been appointed.

 While disposing of the case, the Court said, "His pay fixation shall be done accordingly and actual benefits shall be given from the date of passing of this order. The exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of this order."

Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate, Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate and Mr. Akash Gahlawat, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Title: Ranbir v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 136

Click here to read/download the order