Dismissed

Sarvesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023WRIA/13668/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's declaration as medically unfit for a police post. The court relied on precedent to hold that voluntary third-party medical reports cannot override the opinion of a constituted medical board acting under statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit as third-party reports cannot controvert the constituted Medical Board's decision.

Sarvesh Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194432

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13668 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anita Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

¶7

Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Force and appeared in the examination held in the year 2020. In the medical examination conducted regarding medical fitness of the petitioner he was declared unfit in the first medical examination held on 30th June, 2023 on the ground that he had CXR S/O prominent bronchovascular markings, accordingly, he was suggested for remedical examination. In the re-medical examination so held on 3rd July, 2023 he was again declared unfit on medical ground for the same reason with further remarks of prominent bronchovascular markings.

¶8

Petitioner has challenged the medical examination on the ground that he got himself medically examined at Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari Chikitsalay, Ghazipur which is stated to be a government medical hospital in which after city scan was conducted, no abnormality was detected and impression was shown that there is no evidence of focal parenchymal infiltrate, central or peripheral mass lesion.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this report was obtained on 5th July, 2023. He has further relied upon the report obtained from the Medical Hospital of Banaras Hindu University also, according to which no abnormality was found.

¶10

Per contra , it is argued by Ms. Anita Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that for Recruitment Selection and Medical Examination clear cut rules have been framed and guidelines had also been published along with advertisement in which vide clause 12.10.1 it was clearly observed that medical and

¶11

review medical will be held within the prescribed time limit and the decision of the re-medical board/ review medical board will be final and no further appeal or representation will be entertained. She submits that medical examination is conducted by a Board that consists of a qualified medical officers for the very purpose and, therefore, no third party report can be entertained to contradict the report/ opinion of the Medical Board constituted for this purpose.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, I find that even in the first medical examination and second re-medical examination petitioner has been declared unfit for medical reasons. The opinion that has been expressed by the Board is sought to be contested on the ground that upon further medical examination which petitioner got voluntarily conducted at district hospital Ghazipur and further got it cross-checked at B.H.U. Hospital but in my considered view this cannot be itself a ground to hold the medical and re-medical examination held by a body of skilled medical officers to be bad.

¶13

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Kumar vs. State of UP & others passed in Special Appeal Defective No.117 of 2020 has clearly held that neither this Court has expertise to sit over the opinion expressed by the Medical Board nor, it would be appropriate for this Court to ask for a third party report to contradict the report of the body of experts constituted for the said purpose under the relevant recruitment rules. The Court has observed thus:

¶14

"11. In a case where a recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules whereunder a procedure has been prescribed for testing the medical fitness of candidates by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by a candidate on the basis of some subsequent report(s) procured by him from a private practitioner(s).

¶15

12. It is not the case of the petitioner that the decision of the Medical Board was arbitrary, capricious or not in accordance with the procedure under the relevant statutory recruitment rules."

¶16

This above view has also been followed in one of my recent judgment in the case of Shahbaj Khan v. Union of India and others (Writ - A No.- 15248 of 2023) decided on 13th July, 2023.

¶17

In view of the above legal position, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the matter on the basis of a third party report voluntarily obtained by the petitioner.

¶18

Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Atmesh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and 3 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

Harish Chandra Mishra Vs State of U P and 2 Others

A.S.I. Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kishor Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Savita Devi and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Upendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others