STATE OF M.P Vs. SUNNY KARARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order dtd. 17/1/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18177/2017 by which the appellants/State have been directed to issue a consequential appointment order in favour of the respondent and he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits excluding back wages by treating him as an appointee from the date the other persons from the same process of selection have been appointed. The appellants shall also grant notional fixation of salary, seniority and interest.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a writ petition being aggrieved by the order dtd. 13/9/2017 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Selection/Recruitment), Police Headquarters, Jahangirabad on medical grounds. The contention of the respondent in the writ petition was that an advertisement was issued in the month of April, 2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for various posts including the post of Constable (Water Carrier) and the respondent did apply for the same. The respondent belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and participated in the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board and qualified for the second stage i.e. physical test which was to be held on 29/9/2016. He was declared physically fit and therefore he was required to undergo medical examination post selection. The respondent appeared before the medical board at District Medical Board on 9/2/2017 and he was not found fit in medical examination by the District Medical Board and the respondent submitted a representation dtd. 2/3/2017 to Regional Director of Health Services, Indore and requisitioned for medical examination b the Divisional Medical Board. The respondent was directed to appear before the Divisional Medical Board and he was examined at M.Y. Hospital, Indore on 3/4/2017 and even video recording of the medical examination was done and the respondent after examination was not found fit on technical ground. The respondent's contention was that he was fit for the post of Constable (Water Carrier) therefore, in the light of GOP No. 137/2012, the appellants were required to issue appointment order in favour of the respondent.

(3.) In the reply filed by the appellants/State they have not denied the selection of the respondent on the post of Constable (Water Carrier). The appellants have stated that the respondent does not fulfill minimum physical qualification required for the post and as per Clause 2.5 of GOP dtd. 30/7/2012, "a candidate must possess vision intensity of 6.9 without glass and 6.12 for the second eye without glass and the candidate should also not be colour blind." The appellants have also stated that the respondent has not been found fit by the Divisional Medical Board.