Allowed

Virendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019WRIA/21219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition seeking re-examination of a petitioner declared medically unfit. The court directed the Commissioner of Medical Officers to constitute a board which opined the petitioner was fit. Noting no objections from the respondents, the court directed them to process the candidature within one month.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to process the petitioner's candidature based on the approved Medical Board report and finalise the decision within one month.

Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21219 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Raj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶6

On 4 October 2018, this Court passed the following order:

¶7

“ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

¶8

It has been alleged by the petitioner that he had been selected in written examination, but was rejected as medically unfit. He applied for review of the decision regarding unfitness and he was directed to appear before the Divisional Medical Board. The Divisional Medical Board has also proceeded to invalidate the petitioner on account of bow leggedness.

¶9

It has been submitted that the petitioner got himself medically examined by Dr. D.S. Srivastava posted as Medical Officer in Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad. A copy of the said certificate dated 18.9.2018 has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar matters, this Court has already passed the orders for the CMO of the district concerned to constitute a Medical Board of three Doctors or Specialist in the subject. He has referred to such an order being passed in Writ-A No. 18981 of 2018.

¶11

Consequently, it is directed that the CMO, Barabanki shall constitute the necessary Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the CMO in this regard on 10.10.2018 and deposit Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The Medical Board shall examine the petitioner in presence of the Assistant Commandant 10th Battalion, PAC, Barabanki, District Barabanki on 26.10.2018 and submit a report to this Court on or before 2.11.2018.

¶12

List on 2.11.2018.”

¶13

Pursuant to the directions issued, the Board constituted in terms of the order of this Court had submitted its opinion holding that the petitioner is fit for selection. The report

¶14

runs contrary to the opinion formed by the Medical and Review Medical Board constituted by the respondents. A copy of the opinion had also been handed over to the learned Standing Counsel and time had been granted to respond. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel has neither been able to formulate nor indicate to this Court any objection which the respondents may have to the opinion formed by the Board constituted in terms of the order aforementioned.

¶15

Accordingly and since no other material is referred to or relied upon which may cast a doubt on the opinion or correctness of the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Board constituted by this Court, the respondents are directed to consequently process the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of this report. The writ petition is allowed. The exercise of consideration shall be concluded within a period of one month from today and a decision with respect to the candidature of the petitioner shall be finalised within that period.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 LA/-

Virendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boby Chahar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Baksh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babu Lal Meena Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Arun Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. S.T. Asha Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others