Allowed

Arti Bhadauria v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2019WRIA/9382/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge order allowed a writ petition challenging a medical unfitness declaration due to low vision. The Court held that the petitioner was not properly examined by previous boards and ordered a refund of the deposited Rs. 5,000/- and considered her for appointment.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; refund of Rs. 5,000/- ordered; appointment candidature to be considered within six weeks.

Arti Bhadauria Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9382 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Arti Bhadauria Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Upadhyay,Rajesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Following orders were passed in the matter on 11.7.2019:-

¶6

"Petitioner has been declared medically unfit by the Medical Board as also by the Appellate board on account of low vision. The finding in that regard is assailed by the petitioner with reference to the certificate issued by the 'Dharmarth Zila Netra Chikitsalaya, Etawah', wherein petitioner's vision has been found to be perfect. It is stated that the large number of candidates were considered in a casual manner on the same day and the petitioner's vision has been declared poor without due care. It is stated that large number of other persons have also been declared medically unfit for unsustainable reasons.

¶7

This Court in somewhat similar facts and circumstances has considered the issue which arises in the facts of the present case and reasons have been recorded in the order dated 13.8.2018 passed in Writ A No. 14726 of 2018 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others) for petitioner's grievance to be entertained. The reasoning assigned in the said order is followed here as well.

¶8

In such circumstance, it would be appropriate to provide that the petitioner shall appear, along with a certified copy of this order, before the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar on 15.07.2019. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost with the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The Chief Medical Officer would constitute a Medical Board consisting of three Specialist in the field of the level of Professor and associates Professors available at the local District Hospital. The C.M.O. shall also inform the S.P., Auraiya, who shall depute an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 15.7.2019. The petitioner shall also produce materials in support of his identity before the Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 15.7.2019 and he would be medically examined by the Board of three doctors on the question as to whether the petitioner is medically fit in terms of the Rules, 2015. The report signed by the Chairman of the Board would be sent through the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar before this Court on or before 22.07.2019. This report would constitute the basis for the Court to determine as to whether the report of the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board is liable to be questioned or not? Put up as fresh on 22.7.2019. "

¶9

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the Chief Medical Officer concerned. As per the instructions, a Medical Board was constituted of three doctors and the petitioner was examined by the Board in presence of the Additional Superintendent of Police.

¶10

As per the report of three member committee, which has been duly signed by them, petitioner does not suffer from defective eye vision. The report is also signed by the Additional Superintendent of Police concerned.

¶11

From the materials placed, this Court is satisfied that petitioner has not been examined properly by the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board and the action of the respondents in denying her appointment on the premise that petitioner is physically unfit cannot be sustained. Petitioner's vision was examined by a single doctor having expertise in the concerned area while three senior doctors have examined the petitioner under the orders of this Court. The opinion expressed by three doctors of the same field would be entitled to greater weight then the sole doctor during medical board examination or the appellate board examination.

¶12

Photocopy of the medical report has been retained by the Court while the original copy of the medical report is being returned to the learned Standing Counsel. Its copy, however, shall be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner by learned Standing Counsel.

¶13

This petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. Petitioner shall also be entitled to refund of Rs. 5,000/- deposited with the Chief Medical Officer in terms of the previous order of this Court. Petitioner's claim for appointment shall be considered, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and his candidature would not be non-suited due to defective eye vision.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Ashok Kr.

Arti Bhadauria v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Bhadauria v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Km. Maneesha Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajnishmurti Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Janardan Singh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bineeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunita Khare @ Srivastava Vs State of U P and 3 Others