Dismissed

Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021WRIA/1336/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to challenge the petitioner's disqualification in a police recruitment due to height. The Court rejected claims based on a new medical report filed four years later, emphasizing the sanctity of the internal appeal and review process and the binding nature of the Review Medical Board's findings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1336 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajit Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,Shweta Singh Attre

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the findings of the physical standard test conducted by the respondent- Board in the Direct Recruitment, 2015 for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC (Male).

¶7

It is stated that the findings of the Board that the petitioner's height was short, is incorrect, inasmuch as, a physical fintness report has been given by the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Mau whereby the petitioner's height was found 171cm.

¶8

It may be noted that the present writ petition has been filed in the month of January, 2021. The physical standard test of the petitioner in the recruitment-in-question was conducted on 08.02.2016.

¶9

It is informed by the learned Standing Counsel that the final result of the said recruitment was declared in the month of May, 2018. After a period of more than four years of the test conducted by the respondent- Board and two years after declaration of the final result, the prayer made in the writ petition, thus, cannot be entertained.

¶10

The laches explained on the part of the petitioner is not to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶11

Even otherwise, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Rahul namely Special Appeal Defective No.70 of 2016 vide judgement and order dated 03.02.2016 has held that this Court is not competent to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board on the basis of the report of private medical expert. A self contained procedure has been provided to redress the grievances of the candidates who appeared in the examination conducted by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board by providing them an opportunity to file appeal against the findings of the Medical Board and to appear before the Review Medical Board.

¶12

Time and again, the Court has emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of the recruitment process and of the care and circumspection which has to be exercised before the findings of an expert Medical Board constituted by the authorities are interfered with in writ proceedings. Undoubtedly, the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide enough to issue such a direction in an appropriate case. However, such directions cannot be issued merely on the basis of a request made in that behalf before the Court.

¶13

In Union of India through Ministry of Railways vs. Parul Punia decided on 11.01.2016, this Court has emphasized the need for caution when candidates seek to question the correctness of the findings of a medical Board constituted under the recruitment process adopted by the authorities of the State, on the basis of a report obtained by the candidates. The Division Bench observed as under:-

¶14

"...In a number of such cases, candidates who have been invalidated on medical grounds produce expert opinions of their own to cast doubt on the credibility of the official medical report constituted by the recruiting body. In such cases, the Court may not have any means of verifying the actual identity of the person who was examined in the course of the medical examination by the Doctor whose report is relied upon by the candidate. Hence, even though the authority whose medical report was produced by the candidate may be an expert, the basic issue as to whether the identity of the candidate who was examined, matches the identity of the person who has applied for the post is a serious issue which cannot be ignored..." .

¶15

To deal with the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction, it is observed as follows;-

¶16

"...Undoubtedly, in a suitable case, the powers of the Court under Article 226 are wide enough to comprehend the issuance of appropriate directions but such powers have to be wielded with caution and circumspection. Matters relating to the medical evaluation of candidates in the recruitment process involve expert determination. The Court should be cautious in supplanting the process adopted by the recruiting agency and substituting it by a Court mandated medical evaluation. In the present case the proper course would have been to permit an evaluation of the medical fitness of the respondent by a review medical board provided by the appellants. Otherwise, the recruitment process can be derailed if such requests of candidates who are not found to be medically fit for reassessment on the basis of procedures other than those which are envisaged by the recruiting authority are allowed. This would ordinarily be impermissible."

¶17

In another judgement of State of U.P. Vs. Deepak Kumar in Special Appeal Defective no.849 of 2015 decided on 17.12.2015 it was observed:-

¶18

"Once such is the factual situation that there is self contained procedure, that has been provided for, being declared medically fit and there is a provision of review also in case an incumbent is declared medically unfit and here on two occasions respondent petitioner has failed to prove himself to be medically fit, then based on the report of a private medical practitioner no such mandatory directives could have been issued. That is totally outside the scope of scheme that has been

¶19

provided for, in view of this, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be subscribed by us. Candidate concerned, at no point of time, has imputed any motive to members of Medical Board that they have wrongly for extraneous consideration prepared wrong report."

¶20

In the light of the above legal position, in the facts of the present case, it is noteworthy that the petitioner raised an objection regarding the finding of the medical board constituted by the respondent by filing an appeal. He had appeared before the Review Medical Board and was found unfit as per the required standards. On the basis of an independent examination of the petitioner by the doctor of the government hospital, he cannot be allowed to contradict the findings of the Review Medical Board.

¶21

Be that as it may, a subsequent medical report cannot be made basis to challenge the findings of the experts in absence of any allegations of motive to members of Medical Board that they have wrongly for extraneous consideration prepared wrong report.

¶22

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶23

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 P Kesari

Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Chahar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

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

Manish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Seth Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others