Petitioner challenged his declaration of unfitness for Sub-Inspector recruitment, alleging no medical examination was held. The court examined medical reports and expert opinions, finding no prima facie case for intervention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19519 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lavish Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta,Girijesh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Girijesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, which read as under:-
"I. A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result of the petitioner at serial No.2 issued by Mandaliya Chikitsha Parishad Mandal Meerut through its Adhyaksha Sanyut Nideshak/Mandaliya Surgical Adhikari Office Additional Director Meerut (respondent no.2) dated 12.11.2022 along with 9 candidates (annexure no.5) to the writ petition.
II. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to conduct a fresh medical examination of petitioner with regard to his fitness if possible in any other district and accordingly further commanding to respondent no.4 to consider the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of sub-inspector under the recruitment of 2020-21 in question within in a period which this Hon'ble Court may direct in the interest of justice."
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police Recruitment 2020-21 wherein he had cleared the written test and thereafter on 12.11.2022, he had appeared before the Medical Board at Meerut where no medical test of the petitioner was held. Thereafter, the petitioner was made to wait for sometimes and soon thereafter the result of nine candidates was pasted on the Notice Board on 12.11.2022 itself and the petitioner was declared unfit.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated and no fair opportunity was granted inasmuch as the petitioner was not subjected to the medical examination and without adopting the procedure, the petitioner has been declared unfit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to a supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2022 to submit that in a review medical examination report dated 27.09.2022, the vision of the petitioner was found 6/6 in both eyes and he was also declared fit. He submitted that this was in context with recruitment in the CRPF and thus, the contention is that once the eyesight as well as the foot of the petitioner was found appropriate for CRPF, yet the petitioner has been non-suited on account of having improper eyesight as well as High Arch Foot which which is contradictory, hence, it gives credence to the submission that no examination of the petitioner was carried out and he has been nonsuited.
The record indicates that the Court by means of the order dated 28.11.2022 had required the learned standing counsel to seek instructions.
As per the written instructions, it has been pointed out by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner was medically examined and he was found suffering from High Arch Foot and refractive error in the eyes.
It is further urged that the aforesaid report of the Medical Board is dated 08.11.2022 whereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal which was taken up by the Review Medical Board on 09.11.2022 and his eyesight as well as the High Arch Foot was confirmed.
It has further been pointed out that on both the reports, the signatures as well as thump impression of the petitioner is present and, therefore, the contention in the petition that no medical examination of the petitioner was conducted is clearly belied.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought on record a copy of the medical fitness certificate dated 31.01.2023 to buttress his submission that the petitioner is otherwise medical fit and in the aforesaid circumstances since there is an anomaly and discrepancy in the report of the Medical Board, consequently, the petitioner may be permitted to be medically re-examined.
Taking note of the aforesaid medical certificate which has been provided to the Court for perusal, it indicates that it does not take care nor it indicate that the petitioner has been examined for High Arch Foot. Even otherwise, this Court finds that from a perusal of the Review Medical Examination Report dated 27.09.2022, which has been placed on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 28.11.2022, even the Medical Board
was not sure regarding its opinion on High Arch Foot as there was a split opinion amongst the Members of the Medical Board, which was constituted where the petitioner had applied for a post in the CRPF.
Having considered the aforesaid, the basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not medically examined is belied in light of the two reports submitted by the learned standing counsel along with written instructions. There does not appear to be any prima-facie case for this Court to intervene or to call in question the two medical reports. Even otherwise in matters such as raised by the petitioner, the Court is usually very slow to intervene where the matter has already been examined by the expert Board.
Since, the orders which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on their own factual matrix and are interlocutory orders, accordingly, they are clearly distinguishable in the instant case. The Court does not find that there is any sufficient material to satisfy that there is any error, which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition for the relief claimed.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed . In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Learned standing counsel shall provide a true copy of the medical report dated 08.11.2022 as well as Review Medical Examination Report dated 09.11.2022 to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner was not medically examined before being declared unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector.
Whether the writ petitioners medical fitness resulting in declaration of unfitness is free from errors warranting court intervention.
Lavish
State Of U.P.
Mandaliya Chikitsha Parishad Mandal Meerut
Additional Director Meerut
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
