Dismissed¶12

Shubham Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/3487/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRPF recruitment; Constable Safai Karamchari (SK); medical unfitness; Hydrocele; knock knee; Medical Board; Review Medical Board; remedical examination; doubtful private medical certificate (District Hospital Raebareli); no third/fresh medical examination prescribed under rules; writ petition dismissed; WRIT - A No. 3487 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur, J.; decided 23.10.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:71814.

What did the court decide?

No reliance shall be placed on the medical report/certificate submitted by the petitioner, the District Hospital Raebareli certificate being doubtful. ¶11

Shubham Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71814

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3487 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shubham Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Raj Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India.

¶6

It has been submitted that learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has applied for the post of Constable Safai Karamchari (SK) in Central Reserve Police Force in response to an advertisement dated 25.06.2020. The petitioner was called for a Physical Standard Test (PST) for the post of Constable Safai Karamchari (SK) Group Centre, CRPF, Bijnour, Lucknow on 21.01.2021 where he was found fit and qualified by the Members of the Board. Subsequently the petitioner was called for a Computer Based Test on 28.03.2023 and after qualifying the same the petitioner was called for the skill test. The petitioner also qualified the aforesaid test and appeared before the Medical Board on 28.02.2024 where he was found to be unfit on account of (i) Knock Knee (ii) R/L Hydorcele thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Medical Board had applied for the Review Medical Board. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was not aware of the decision of the Review Medical Board. Since he did not find his name in the list of selected candidates had filed the present writ petition.

¶7

In response to the averments made in the present writ petition a counter affidavit has been filed by the Commandant, Central Sector Headquarter CRPF Lucknow, where the copy of the Review Medical Board has been annexed as per the said report, no defect has been found in the knee of the petitioner but he has been declared to be unfit on account of Hydrocele.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is discrepancy in the two medical reports and accordingly has prayed for a direction to the respondents to conduct his remedical examination and also for providing appointment on the post of Constable Safai Karamchari (SK) in Central Reserve Police Force.

¶9

Sri Raj Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of respondents has informed the Court that both the medical boards have uniformally declared that the petitioner as unfit on account of Hydrocele though he submits that there was difference of opinion with regard to the determination of knock knee. He submits that in case there was any other discrepancy in the reports of the Medical Boards, the petitioner could have made out the case for re-determination by an independent agency, but since there is consistent finding with regard to Hydrocele by both the Medical Boards and accordingly he submits that there is no statutory remedy under the rules for re-examination on third occasion.

¶10

Considering the rival contentions, this Court has duly considered the grievance made by the petitioner with regard to him being declared unfit in both the medical boards where he had been found to be suffering from Hydorcele and accordingly has been declared to be unfit. The petitioner has annexed a certificate issued by the office of Rana Beni Madhav Zila Chiktishaaly, Raebareli which accordance to the petitioner is a Government Hospital and a colour photo copy has been annexed alongwith the writ petition which shows as signed by Ortho Surgeon of District Hospital Raebareli where it has been shown that petitioner has no "knock knee". The said certificate is doubtful as there is no evidence that such a certificate has been issued to any person appearing before the Medical Board constituted at the District Hospital by the Chief Medical Officer and the report is submitted under his supervision.

¶11

Accordingly, no reliance shall be placed on the medical report submitted by the petitioner. Apart from the above there is consistent medical opinion by both the Medical Boards holding that the petitioner suffers from Hydorcele, there is no good ground for interfering in the said medical reports. Apart from the above even the relevant rules do not prescribe for fresh determination after the matter has been re-examined by the Review Medical Board.

¶12

In light of the above, no interference is called for the petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Satish

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Manisha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Jai Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation and Others

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others