Rajasthan HC Slams State For Denying Mason Post To Man With Amputation In Non-Dominant Hand, Appointing Man With Amputation In Dominant Hand Instead

Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition filed by a candidate denied mason post for being declared medically unfit on account of amputated little finger of his left hand (non-dominant hand), as opposed to another candidate who was given the employment despite having amputation of finger in his dominant hand.

While terming the approach of the State to be “lopsided on the very basic commonsense”, the bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the petitioner was subjected to discrimination as compared to the other candidate, and observed that what had to be seen for a right-handed person was if he had any unfitness in the same hand, and if not, whether the left hand interfered with the skill of the right hand.

“The petitioner, included in the merit list and qualified for the role, was rejected without valid grounds, violating principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equals must be treated equally and, therefore, the non-grant of the benefit to the petitioner despite his being otherwise eligible and meritorious, does not meet the judicial approval.”

The petitioner had applied for the post of mason and his name appeared in the merit list. However, in the primary medical examination, his little finger of the left hand was found to be shorter due to amputation, and he was declared unfit. He called for review medical examination, but even in that he was orally informed of the same decision, and despite asking, no report was provided to him.

It was the case of the petitioner that the defect in his left hand did not reduce his efficiency at work in any manner. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that another candidate who had an amputated finger in his right hand (dominant hand) was declared medically fit in the review medical examination and was given the appointment by the State.

After hearing the contentions, the Court took into account the fact that while the petitioner having defect in his left hand (non-dominant hand) was declared medically unfit, another candidate who was having similar defect in his dominant hand was given the benefit of the appointment.

It was observed that the State failed to show how did the petitioner's defect interfered with his duties of a mason that led to his rejection. Furthermore, the Court also opined that the lack of transparency in the process of review medical examination undermined its fairness.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the State was directed to take appropriate action within 30 days.

Title: Arvind Kumar v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

Click Here To Read/Download Order