Disposed

Avinash Kumar v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020WRIA/12586/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition regarding medical rejection in recruitment. The Court heard the case and found it was covered by a prior judgment (Writ A No. 5049 of 2020) which held that appeals should be entertained based on specialist certificates to constitute a Review Medical Board. The Court relied on that precedent to dispose of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ A No. 5049 of 2020.

Avinash Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12586 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Avinash Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laloo Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the Union of India

¶6

It is submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ A No. 5049 of 2020 on 17.09.2020, in which it has been held thus:

¶7

" As noted, the main provision in the Recruitment Scheme providing for the remedy of review medical examination only speaks of medical certificate from Government District Hospital or above, to be annexed with the appeal. The medical certificate annexed with the appeal shall be evidence of possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of initial medical board/recruiting medical officer, who had examined the candidate in the first instance. The doctor issuing the certificate is required to certify that it is being issued in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate had already been rejected and declared unfit for service by CAPF medical board, or the recruiting medical officer. He has to owe full responsibility of the facts certified by him. The object unambiguously was to prevent frivolous appeals being filed. If the documents were found in order, the appeal could be accepted. The acceptance of the appeal would not mean that the candidate has been declared or accepted to be medically fit. It would only pave way for constitution of a Review Medical Board by the respondents. The candidates would thereafter be subjected to medical examination once again by the Review Medical Board and only if he is found fit that he would be moving to the next stage of recruitment. The requirement that certificate should be by specialist medical officer of concerned field came to be incorporated for the first time in Form No.3 at the place where the doctor issuing the certificate has to sign, mention his name, and put his seal. In my considered opinion, the requirement of filing medical certificate alongwith the memo of appeal should be interpreted keeping in mind the object with which the said provision has been incorporated. It should not be overstretched, lest the very purpose of providing remedy of review medical examination may stand defeated. So interpreted, I am of the considered view that the Certificates annexed by the petitioners alongwith their appeal were sufficient to entertain the appeals.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the Union of India that Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent, Government Hospital, Jamui who certified that two of the petitioners were not suffering from High BP/Hypertension was not competent to issue the same as he is not a cardiologist, has also no force. The qualifications of Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad are not in dispute. He has done Masters in Surgery and being a general surgeon in a government hospital, he was competent enough to examine the petitioners and certify that they were not suffering from hypertension. Under the recruitment scheme, as noted above, the only evidentiary value of his certificate is in formation of prima facie opinion that there could be an error of judgment on part of the medical officer who examined the candidate in the first instance to warrant acceptance of the appeal for review medical examination of

¶9

the petitioners. In the review medical examination, the petitioners will be subjected to medical examination by expert doctors. In case the petitioners were really not suffering from the ailments/ shortcomings pointed out during the initial medical examination, they would succeed. On the other hand, if they do suffer from the ailments/shortcomings, they would be discarded. There is no right of further appeal against the decision of the review medical board. In case the certificates furnished by the petitioners are relied upon at this stage, the respondents would not suffer except that they shall have to hold a review medical examination. On the other hand, if the petitioners really do not suffer from any ailment/shortcoming, as alleged, but their appeal for review medical examination is rejected at the very threshold on the above ground, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In all events, therefore, the appeals preferred by the petitioners for a review medical examination should not be dismissed in the manner as has been done by the respondents.

¶10

In consequence and as a result of above discussion, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The respondents are directed to constitute Review Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of production of true attested copy of the instant order before them.

¶11

No order as to costs."

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute above factual and legal position and submits that this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the order quoted hereinabove .

¶13

In view of above, this writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of in terms of order passed in Writ A No. 5049 of 2020 on 17.09.2020.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Sanjeev

Avinash Kumar v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Kumar v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Bharti Vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others

Bharat Lal Vs State of U P and 10 Others

Dinesh Yadav Vs District Magistrate and 4 Others

Raushan Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Pintu Baitha Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Rahul Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others