Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalyanee Bagdi vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2025
1 WP-21859-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 25th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21859 of 2024
KALYANEE BAGDI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmesh Chatruvedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Deputy Solicitor General for the
respondent.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged Annexure P-6, whereby the offer of appointment of the petitioner has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner was declared unfit in the initial medical examination and then again in the review medical examination and therefore, her offer of appointment to the post of Constable GD in Central Industrial Security Force is being withdrawn.
2. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process in the year 2018 and she passed the written test. She had been declared fit in the physical/medical examination also which was conducted in the year 2020. However, her appointment letter could not be issued at the relevant point of time because certain doubts were cast as to her identity and some enquiry was conducted to ascertain the true identity of the petitioner as she was being Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/27/2025 11:40:49 AM 2 WP-21859-2024 recruited in a security force under Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. After ascertainment of her identity was concluded in her favour, therefore, the petitioner was given offer of appointment. She was asked to again appear for medical examination, because the validity of one medical examination as per instructions of Ministry of Home Affairs placed on record as Annexure R-5, is only one year.
4. The petitioner appeared for medical examination on 27.06.2024 and the report is placed on record as Annexure R-3, as per which the petitioner had been declared unfit on account of four reasons, which are as under:-
(i) Defective distinct vision,
(ii) Overweight,
(iii) Urine parameters not normal,
(iv) Bilateral cervical ribs.
5. The aforesaid parameters of unfitness related to eyes, urine parameters and orthopedic unfitness apart from being overweight.
6. The petitioner appealed for constitution of review medical Board and the review medical examination was duly conducted on 04.07.2024 and the report is placed on record as Annexure R-4. As per findings of the review medical board, the petitioner was declared fit in the parameters of vision, parameters of orthopedic deformity and urine parameters. The disability only remained in the matter of the petitioner being overweight as her BMI was found to be 28.3 in place of required BMI of being below 25.
7. On account of her being overweight, she has been declared unfit by the review medical board vide Annexure P-4.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/27/2025 11:40:49 AM3 WP-21859-2024
8. The counsel for the respondent has relied on judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 to submit that the respondents were bound to follow the procedure to subject the petitioner for fresh medical examination and also on judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Om Prakash, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 377 to submit that no judicial review over findings of medical board should be made.
9. There is some force in the contention of counsel for the petitioner that once the only parameter of unfitness that was ultimately sustained by Review Medical Board was of being overweight and the petitioner had duly been selected after facing recruitment process in the year 2018, then some reasonable time should have been given to the petitioner to subject herself to review medical board, because the criteria of being overweight could not be cured by the petitioner within seven days. The initial medical board had erroneously declared the petitioner unfit on as many as four parameters, because the two parameters of orthopedic deformity and vision could not be cured within seven days and it was clear that the findings of the earlier medical board dated 27.06.2024 was utterly illegal and since one of the findings was of being overweight, then some reasonable time should have been given to overcome that issue. By referring to the instructions Annexure P-5, it is contended that the said instructions do not lay down any time limit for conducting the review medical board and one of the unfitnesses was such that after giving sufficient time, the petitioner could have overcome that unfitness, then she was required to be given some reasonable time.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/27/2025 11:40:49 AM4 WP-21859-2024
10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be given one more chance to appear before the review medical board.
11. The respondents are directed to convene a fresh review medical board for the petitioner to re-scrutinize her fitness from all parameters and not only on the parameter of overweight, because now one more year from the earlier review medical board examination has elapsed.
12. The respondents are directed to fix appropriate date for appearance of the petitioner at CAPF Referral Hospital, Greater Noida, UP by intimating the petitioner at least 15 days in advance.
13. Let the medical examination be conducted within 90 days from today at CAPF Referral Hospital, Greater Noida, UP.
14. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/27/2025 11:40:49 AM