[2026:RJ-JP:12883] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13082/2022 Kishan Chand Son of Shri Tara Chand, aged about 33 years, Resident of Village Pejuka Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India RBO-1, Heritage City, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur, 302013 Rajasthan. 2. The Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Department, Local Head Office, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302005 Rajasthan. 3. The Deputy General Manager & CDO, Promoting Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302005 Rajasthan. 4. State Bank of India, Putli Road, Kotputli Branch (11392) Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur - 303108 Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishivas Saini, Mr. Mananjay Singh Rathore, Ms. Kriti Rathore and Mr. Chetan Khandel For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal with Ms. Vikram Singh and Ms. Annika Anna HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 27/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof; And set aside the letter no. HR/REC/dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8) issued by the respondents and further respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (2 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] to- join the promotional post which is clerical cadre with all consequential benefits. Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Part Time Sweeper (Safai Karamchari) in the State Bank of Patiala, Palwal Branch vide appointment letter dated 04.08.2010 in the OBC category. Upon successful completion of his probation period of six months on 22.02.2011, he was confirmed as PTS (Part Time Sweeper) on ½ scale wages w.e.f. 23.02.2011. By virtue of his satisfactory and unblemished service record, vide letter dated 11.05.2015, the petitioner's pay was fixed from 3/4th scale to full scale wages. In the year 2016, the petitioner was transferred to the State Bank of Patiala, Raja Park Branch, Jaipur. Subsequently, in the year 2017, the State Bank of Patiala was merged with the State Bank of India and accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed into the services of the respondent-Bank and transferred to the SBI Narheda Branch, Kotputli, Jaipur. After rendering satisfactory service of nine years, the respondent Bank, on the basis of seniority channel, selected the petitioner and called him for a written test held on 22.01.2022 for promotion to the post of clerical cadre (Grahak Mitra Channel). The petitioner was declared successful in the said examination, his name appearing at Serial No. 63 in the final result list. Thereafter, the respondent Bank [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (3 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] obtained a fresh medical report of the petitioner from Government BDM Medical Hospital, Kotputli, and as per the said report, there was no anomaly and the petitioner was found fit for promotion. The petitioner was thereupon provisionally promoted to the clerical cadre w.e.f. 21.03.2022 and, vide letter dated 18.04.2022, his services were surrendered to Region-I, AO-1, Jaipur, and he was ultimately posted at Kotputli Branch (11392), Jaipur, joining thereat on 20.04.2022. However, after the petitioner had rendered satisfactory service in his new assignment for a period of approximately one month, the Deputy General Manager & CDO of LHO Jaipur, vide the impugned letter No. HR/REC/475 dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8), reverted the petitioner from clerical cadre to subordinate cadre on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from Polycystic Kidney Disease (hereinafter referred to as "PKD"), which was described as a progressive nature disease, and that the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, Mumbai had declared him medically unfit for the promoted post. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted detailed representations to the respondents, however, no corrective action was taken. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, after being declared successful in the written test and medical examination conducted by the Government BDM Medical Hospital, Kotputli, was found medically fit for promotion and was accordingly provisionally promoted. He submits that the respondent Bank, not being satisfied with the said government medical report, sent the petitioner's case to the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, Mumbai, without affording any [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (4 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without asking the petitioner to present any additional material. It is submitted that the Bank Medical Officer who conducted the initial examination had observed enlargement of kidneys suggestive of Polycystic Kidney Disease; however, the petitioner examined himself at his own by a specialist of SMS Hospital, Jaipur, Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, DM (Nephrology), and who vide his opinion dated 04.04.2022 (Annex.6), specifically certified that the "Patient is fit for clerical job from Nephrology point of view and should avoid heavy exertion." He further submits that the petitioner also obtained a second independent opinion from the Nephrology Department of Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital cum Medical Research Institution, Jaipur, wherein the concerned doctor having specialization in DNB (Nephrology), equally confirmed that the "Patient is fit for clerical job" and requested the concerned authority "to do needful." He submits that despite two consistent and concurrent specialist opinions from prominent government and private hospitals of Rajasthan clearly certifying the petitioner's fitness for the clerical post, the respondents chose to rely solely on the ex parte opinion of the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, Mumbai, without even disclosing the said report to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity to contest the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically places reliance upon the settled principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, and submits that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the provisional promotion of the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice, without placing the adverse medical report before the petitioner, and without [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (5 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] affording him any opportunity of hearing, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. 5. He further submits that the petitioner was already working satisfactorily in the promoted post for about a month before the impugned letter was issued. He also refers to a detailed opinion of a team of senior nephrologists, placed on record by the respondents by way of additional affidavit (Part of Annex.R/3 Page 111 of the paper book), and submits that petitioner is having family history of PKD in father and brother and at present his kidney functions GFR is found normal and his other medical tests are also found normal, so he may be considered as fit. It has also been recorded in the opinion that looking into the progressive nature of disease (Polycystic kidney disease), which may land into comprised kidney functions in future. It is submitted that the respondents' conduct amounts to discrimination and harassment inasmuch as the disease is genetically linked and that his four siblings who also have PKD are alive and leading healthy lives. He therefore urges that the impugned letter is liable to be quashed. 6. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Desh Deepak Dhamija vs. Union Bank of India, (2015) 01 RAJ CK 0075; (ii) Udbhav Kumar Jain vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. : W.P. (C) No.13807/2019 & 55473/2019 decided by Delhi High Court on 02.03.2020; and (iii) Union Bank of India vs. Desh Deepak Dhamija : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.169/2015 decided on 16.05.2016. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent Bank is one of the largest public sector banks [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (6 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] of the country entrusted with the responsibility of providing essential banking services to crores of citizens, and accordingly it is bound under its own internal circular viz. e-Circular No. CDO/P&HRD-IR/4/2012-13 dated 12.04.2012 to ensure the medical fitness of all employees working on the promoted post. She submits that the promotion from subordinate to clerical cadre under the Grahak Mitra channel is governed by the HR Handbook Volume-2, which expressly conditions promotion upon the medical fitness of the selected candidate. 8. She further submits that the Bank Medical Officer, upon noticing that the petitioner's medical examination revealed bilateral enlarged kidneys suggestive of PKD, which is a progressive disease, referred the case to the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, Mumbai, in strict compliance with the guidelines contained in the aforesaid e-Circular; and the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, after due consideration of the reports including the fact that PKD is a condition progressing towards chronic kidney disease, formally declared the petitioner medically unfit for promotion from subordinate to clerical cadre vide report dated 13.05.2022. She submits that the respondent Bank acted in strict conformity with its own established policy and in the interest of the organization and the public at large, and that no malafide or malice can be attributed to the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the medical reports obtained by the petitioner from SMS Hospital and Santokba Durlabhji Hospital were obtained unilaterally, in the absence of the bank's medical officers, without the prior concurrence or knowledge of the respondents, and much before [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (7 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] the issuance of the impugned letter dated 17.05.2022, thereby indicating that the petitioner was himself fully aware of his condition. She submits that relying upon such ex-parte medical reports obtained by the petitioner on his own cannot be countenanced, as it would set a dangerous precedent where every medically unfit employee could bypass the bank's medical examination procedure by producing contradictory opinions from outside doctors. She further submits that medical fitness is a sine qua non for appointment and promotion to public service posts and that courts should be slow to interfere with decisions based on expert medical opinions of the employer in the absence of any malafide. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents additionally submits that the petitioner had failed to avail of the alternate remedy of preferring an appeal to the Medical Board as specifically provided under the e-Circular No. CDO/P&HRD-IR/4/2012-13 dated 12.04.2012. She urges that since the petitioner has not challenged the foundational medical report dated 13.05.2022 (Annex.R/4) forming the basis of the impugned letter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 305; and (ii) Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record. 12. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the respondents have not placed on record any document to show [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (8 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties satisfactorily. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that the service of the petitioner was satisfactory and unblemished, as is evident from the fact that vide letter dated 11.05.2015 his pay was fixed from 3/4th scale to full scale wages, and that after completion of nine years of satisfactory service he was selected by the respondents themselves on the basis of written exam and medical test on the promotion post clerical cadre (Grahak Mitra Channel). 13. This Court further notices that nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to show that the petitioner had taken any medical leave on account of his existing medical condition during the entirety of his service. The petitioner has been in continuous service since 2010 and even after his provisional promotion to the clerical cadre, he rendered satisfactory service for a period of one month from 20.04.2022 until the issuance of the impugned letter dated 17.05.2022, without any complaint as to his performance. 14. This Court also takes note of the nature of the post to which the petitioner was provisionally promoted that is of Grahak Mitra Cum Record Keeper under the clerical cadre. The specialist nephrologist at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, as alleged by the petitioner in his opinion dated 04.04.2022 (Annex.6), while certifying the petitioner fit for clerical job, had only added that the petitioner should avoid heavy exertion. Even if the opinion as alleged by the petitioner is ignored for a moment then too this fact cannot also be ignored that the respondents have not pointed out any aspect of the promotional post that would require the petitioner to [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (9 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] engage in any activity that is inconsistent with the said medical advice. 15. The petitioner has been in the service of the respondent Bank since 2010. He was confirmed in service in February 2011 and his pay was enhanced in May 2015. At no stage has the respondent Bank pointed to any instance of insufficiency or failure on the part of the petitioner attributable to his medical condition. It is also important to take into consideration the opinion (Annex.R/3) placed on record by the respondents, wherein the doctor has specifically opined the petitioner to be medically fit, inasmuch as the kidney functions and other medical tests were found normal; however, he opined for a second opinion looking to the progressive nature of the disease. The respondents, in that circumstances, were under an obligation to seek second opinion of a specialist doctor, which in the present case, has not been sought. There is nothing on record to suggest that the nature of the petitioner’s condition had undergone any change between the date of his appointment in 2010 and the date of the impugned letter in 2022. The condition which is now cited as a ground for reversion has been present throughout the entirety of his service without causing any disruption in service. 16. The petitioner does not dispute the diagnosis of PKD. What the petitioner contests is the conclusion that the said condition renders him unfit for the promotional post. The respondents have themselves placed on record the e-Circular No. CDO/P&HRD- IR/4/2012-13 dated 12.04.2012 (Annex.R1) which prescribes the Standards of Medical Fitness for New Recruits/Promotees. The said Circular reads as under: [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (10 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] “STANDARDS OF MEDICAL FITNESS FOR THE NEW RECRUITS/PROMOTEES A. Aim of The Medical Examination The Medical Examiner is expected to ensure that a candidate in his existing state of health will be able to render uninterrupted service to the Bank. Hence Medical Examiner must give a thorough medical check-up. To be passed as fit for appointment/promotion, a candidate must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties in the Bank. B. General Guidelines: A personal statement is required to be filled in by the candidate in his own handwriting (Annex -A) which should be scrutinised by the medical examiner carefully to see that all the particulars are given and all the questions are answered properly. The signature of candidate should be obtained by the Medical Examiner in his presence which should be tallied with the signature appearing in the letter of introduction attested by the Referring Authority. (a) The Medical Examiner should give due attention to the family history and personal history of the candidate (b) The medical report must be written legibly. Answers and statements in the report should be clear and unambiguous. The report should be submitted in the format as per Annex.B. (c) Wherever considered necessary, Medical Examiners should take the opinion of specialists before finalising the report. They should always consider whether the candidate is fit for continuous service in the Bank for a long period. Cases such as kidney ailments, congenital heart diseases, rheumatic heart, malignant hypertension, diabetes, juvenile/or otherwise and HIV positive cases should not be missed. (d) In the cases where, despite a specialist’s opinion, the Medical Examiner is unable to come to a final conclusion regarding the fitness or otherwise of the candidate, he may obtain the opinion of a second specialist. Even then if the Medical Examiner finds any difficulty in coming to a conclusion about fitness or otherwise of a candidate, he may refer such cases to the Bank’s Senior Medical Officer at Local Head Office through the Asstt. General Manager (PER&HRD). If necessary, the Circle authorities may refer these cases to Corporate Centre for guidance in the matter. (e) It may be clarified that in the final evaluation of the candidate’s health, Specialist’s opinion is a very important aspect in declaring the candidate fit/unfit for service. While declaring a candidate unfit for service, the Medical Examiner should clearly state the reasons for arriving at this conclusion. In cases where the Medical Examiner considers that a minor disability disqualifying a candidate for Bank’s service can be cured by treatment (surgical/medical) within a reasonable period of time, say, 3 to 6 months, a statement to that effect should be recorded in the report. (f) The appointing authority should scrutinise the medical reports carefully before issuing the appointment letters to the candidates. [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (11 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] The candidates declared unfit by the Doctor should not be appointed in the Bank. (g) The following are the minimum required tests. 1. Blood C.B.C. 2. E.S.R. 3. Blood Sugar-Fasting-P.P. 4. Serum Cholesterol 5. Blood urea/NPN 6. Serum Creatinine 7. HIV test 8. Urine and Stool 9. X-ray of Chest P.A. view 10.Full abdomen & pelvis Ultrasonography” 17. A reading of Clause (d) of the said circular makes it apparent that the reference to Corporate Centre is only for guidance in the matter and does not confer upon the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre the authority to give a final and conclusive declaration of unfitness that overrides the opinion of a specialist. It is evident from Clause (e) of the Circular that the specialist's opinion constitutes a critical component in the final assessment of a candidate's fitness for service. When declaring a candidate unfit, the Medical Examiner must explicitly articulate the reasons underpinning that determination. Clause (d) of the Circular clarifies that any reference to the Corporate Centre serves solely for advisory purposes and does not vest the Chief Medical Officer at the Corporate Centre with authority to issue a binding declaration of unfitness that supersedes the specialist's opinion. Clause (e) expressly requires the Medical Examiner to furnish reasoned grounds for any conclusion of unfitness. In the instant case, the impugned letter dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8) merely states that the Chief Medical Officer at the Corporate Centre, Mumbai, has declared the Petitioner medically unfit, without delineating any rationale as to how the petitioner's condition impairs his ability to discharge the duties of the clerical post. [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (12 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] Notably, the Chief Medical Officer's opinion has not been placed on record before this Court. Absent a reasoned decision, and given Clause (e)'s emphasis on the specialist's opinion as a pivotal factor in fitness evaluation, the respondents' declaration of the petitioner's unfitness for the promotional post contravenes the Circular. No specialist's opinion was solicited, nor were reasons provided explaining the petitioner's purported inability to perform the requisite duties. The opinion of the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, Mumbai, has not been placed on record before this Court. In the absence of a reasoned opinion, and in light of non-adherence to the specific mandate of Clause (e) of the Circular that the specialist’s opinion is sine qua non for declaring a candidate unfit in service, the respondents’ decision is in violation of their own Circular certifying the petitioner unfit and, therefore, reliance solely on an unreasoned opinion of the Corporate Centre cannot be sustained. 18. During the course of oral arguments, this Court had put a specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the qualification and specialization of the doctor whose opinion was relied upon by the Chief Medical Officer at Corporate Centre, Mumbai, in arriving at the conclusion of medical unfitness. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to furnish any answer to the said query. This Court is of the view that where a promotion is withdrawn on the basis of a medical opinion, the respondents are obliged required to seek opinion of a specialist doctor, whose opinion forms the foundation of such a decision, particularly when the petitioner has placed on record specific opinions of qualified specialist nephrologists to the contrary. [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (13 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] 19. This Court further finds support from the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment of this Court at principal Bench at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.169/2015 Union of India vs Desh Deepak Dhamija decided on 16.05.2016 , wherein, while relying upon the decision in Faizan Siddiqui vs Sashastra Seema Bal reported in (124) DRJ 542 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High court, it was held that medical standards are required to be rationally construed in the context of the duties attached to the post. The Court observed that while reasonable medical standards facilitate efficient performance of duties, insistence on a standard which has no nexus with the actual job requirements is unjustified and may operate in a discriminatory manner. The Hon’ble Division Bench further held that denial of employment to a person who is otherwise capable of performing normal job functions and does not pose any risk to the employer is arbitrary and unsustainable. It was emphasized that the State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure fairness and equity, and that the right to work and livelihood forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The doctrine of reasonable accommodation was also invoked to hold that such candidates ought not to be excluded merely on account of a medical condition which does not impair their functional ability. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:- “A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Faizan Siddiqui v. Sashastra Seema Bal, reported in 2011 (124) DRJ 542, held that the medical standards needed for the performance of the specific jobs need to be rationally read and interpreted. Reasonable medical standards help carrying out the required job functions with ease. Insisting on or standard in manner that has по relationship with the level of [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (14 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] medical fitness required to perform the stated job description is really not necessary and may even be discriminatory. We are in absolute agreement with the law laid down by Hon'ble the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court. The denial of employment to the petitioner, who has otherwise not ceased to be capable of performing the normal job functions and who does not pose any threat to the interests of the employer, is not at all justified. Learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition, in our considered opinion, rightly observed that it is incumbent upon the State to ensure fairness and equity alongwith the right to work and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the doctrine of reasonable accommodation in the instant matter demands for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duties.” 20. Further, this Court also finds that in the case of Udbhav Kumar Jain vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. : W.P. (C) No.13807/2019 & 55473/2019 decided by Delhi High Court on 02.03.2020; wherein it was held that a candidate who has undergone a renal transplant and is otherwise maintaining stable health cannot be declared medically unfit in the absence of material showing inability to discharge duties. The Court further observed that outdated and overbroad medical disqualification norms are unsustainable in view of advancements in medical science, and that the right to livelihood cannot be denied unless the medical condition demonstrably impairs functional ability. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:- “19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are inclined to allow the petition. It is evident that the petitioner - who underwent renal transplant in the year 2015, has remained stable and normal for the last five years. The petitioner has also placed on record the certificate issued by his treating doctor, namely Dr. Ashwini Gupta, Senior Nephrologist, Department of Nephrology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, which certifies that the petitioner had undergone kidney transplant on 11.05.2015 and since then, he has been on regular follow-up with him and is maintaining normal renal function. It is also certified that he can perform normal duties and he has been advised medicines during his lifetime. Even the medical certificates issued by Dr. RML Hospital and AAAG Hospital have not stated that the petitioner is medically ‘unfit’ on account of him not being able to discharge the duties of a [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (15 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] Judicial Officer due to his medical condition. It is clear to us that Clause 17 of Appendix III of the CSE Rules, which, inter alia, provides that all candidates having transplanted organs should be declared ‘unfit’ except corneal transplant, is an archaic rule, which cannot stand in the wake of medical advancements which have taken place over the decades and since the said rule was framed in the year 1964. The same is extremely widely worded and proceeds on the assumption that persons who undergo any organ transplant (except corneal transplant) cannot lead a stable, fruitful and healthy normal life. This assumption can no longer be justified in the light of the medical advancements made over the decades. As rightly observed by the Bombay High Court in Ranjit Kumar Rajak (supra), right to life and liberty of a person cannot be denied or depleted only on account of his medical condition, when such medical condition is not such as to interfere with his normal functioning on the post for which he has offered his candidature, and he has been found to be otherwise competent for selection.” 21. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has continuously rendered satisfactory service for more than a decade and there is no material on record to demonstrate that his medical condition has, at any stage, impaired his ability to discharge his duties efficiently. The respondents have failed to establish any nexus between the petitioner’s condition and the functional requirements of the clerical post. In such circumstances, the decision to declare the petitioner medically unfit and to withdraw his promotion is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 22. This Court further finds that the impugned action reverting the petitioner is vitiated by a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The material on record does not indicate that the adverse medical opinion, which forms the sole basis of the impugned letter dated 17.05.2022, was ever supplied to the petitioner, nor was he afforded any opportunity to submit his response thereto. Admittedly, no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing, was granted prior to passing an [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (16 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] order entailing serious consequences. Such action, being in derogation of the audi alteram partem rule, cannot be sustained in law. 23. As far as contention of the respondents that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Medical Board is concerned, this Court is prima-facie of the opinion the said contention is not sustainable. The Circular (Annex.R/1), inter- alia, provides as under: "XII. General: There will be no right of appeal available to the candidates against the decision of the Medical Examiner. If however, the Bank is satisfied on the basis of the evidence produced before it of the possibility of an error of judgement in the decision of the Medical Examiner it is open to the Bank to allow an appeal to a Medical Board which will be constituted as and when required. Such appeal should however, be submitted by the candidate within one month of the communication in which the decision of the Medical Examiner is communicated to him/her. Otherwise no request for any appeal to the Medical Board will be considered. The Medical Board will consist of: (i) Senior Medical Officer of the Circle; (ii) Chief Medical Officer or any Senior Physician/Surgeon of Government/Municipal Hospital; (iii) Senior Consultant of standing in the speciality concerned where a candidate is declared unfit. The choice of nomination on the Medical Board will be that of the Bank. For re-examination, the candidate will be required to deposit an appeal fee of Rs. 500/-. This fee will be refundable to those candidates who are declared fit by the Board whereas in the case of others it will be forfeited. Report of the Medical Board will be final and will not be subject to review by any other specialist panel or Board. It should be clearly understood that the Bank reserves to itself absolute discretion to reject or accept any candidate after considering the report of the Medical Board." As per the aforesaid clause, it is incumbent upon the employer to formally communicate the decision of the Medical Examiner to the [2026:RJ-JP:12883] (17 of 17) [CW-13082/2022] employee. Only upon such communication does the employee acquire the right to challenge the report by filing an appeal before the Medical Board within one month. However, in the present case, the respondents have failed to discharge this mandatory obligation. The petitioner was never provided with the Medical Examiner’s report or decision. Instead, through the impugned order dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8), Respondent No. 3, i.e., the Deputy General Manager, merely conveyed that the CMHO at the Corporate Centre had declared the petitioner medically unfit for promotion. In the absence of any formal communication of the Medical Examiner’s findings, the petitioner was effectively deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right of appeal, and therefore, no occasion arose for filing such an appeal. 24. In view of the foregoing, the impugned letter No. HR/REC/475 dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner to the clerical cadre (Grahak Mitra cum Record Keeper Channel) with all consequential service benefits. The respondents are directed to comply with this order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Stay application as well as any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (DR.NUPUR BHATI),J GARIMA /43