Union of India Thru. Secy. Home Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others Vs Sachin Mishra

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 440 of 2025

¶3

Union of India Thru. Secy. Home Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Sachin Mishra	....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: S.B. Pandey, (Sr. Adv. with Ajit Kumar Dwived	) and D.S.G.I. i
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Hari Krishna Chaubey, Mishra, Piyush Tripathi	Manoj Kumar

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

This appeal is directed against order dated 05.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 13968 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking direction to the appellants to accord appointment on the post of Constable in the Central Armed Police Force has been allowed subject to the respondent undergoing reexamination of his haemoglobin counts by a Medical Board to be constituted in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

¶9

The respondent who was subjected to medical examination for the post of Constable, was found to be having haemoglobin at 11.3 gm/dL and in Review Medical Board, the same came at 11.8 gm/dL, based on which, the respondent's candidature was rejected. The respondent underwent fresh test at District Hospital, Ayodhya where the same was indicated as 12.4 gm/dL, based on which the petition was filed.

¶10

The learned Single Judge after noticing the facts and observing that there is a rising trend in the respondent's haemoglobin count, directed the appellants to constitute a Medical Board for re-examination of the respondent's haemoglobin count within a period of ten days.

¶11

Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶12

SPLA No. 440 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering for a re-examination by the Medical Board, inasmuch as the provisions do not provide for any further review, once the Review Medical Board has found the respondent not meeting the requirements of the haemoglobin counts which is 12-16 gm/dL and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that the haemoglobin count, is a fluctuating parameter and as has been found, the same has fluctuated from 11.3 gm/dL to 11.8 gm/dL to 12.4 gm/dL and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in ordering for a reexamination which order does not call for any interference.

¶16

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶17

It is an established fact that in so far as the haemoglobin count is concerned, the same is a fluctuating parameter and that aspect is established from the fact that between the period 17.11.2025 to 25.11.2025, 3 different counts of the respondents, have been reported.

¶18

It is not the case of the appellants that on account of some disease/ailment, the respondent is not having the requisite haemoglobin. The learned Single Judge has simply directed for a re-examination of the haemoglobin count of the respondent and that also by a Medical Board of the appellants, which direction in the circumstances of the case and looking at the parameters for which the re-examination has been ordered, does not call for any interference.

¶19

The appeal has no substance, the same is therefore dismissed.

¶20

It is made clear that as the time granted by learned Single Judge has expired today, the needful may now be done by the appellants within a period of one week from now.

¶21

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶22

December 19, 2025

¶23

Asheesh/RK/-

¶24

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

Union of India Thru. Secy. Home Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others v. Sachin Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru. Secy. Home Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others v. Sachin Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and Another

Deep Mala Shukla and Another Vs M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Thru. Chief Financial Manager and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Shahjalalpur, Biswan Sitapur Thru. Its Pradhan Vs Sunjeet Pandey and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Excise Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Devendra Kumar Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue ) Lko. and 3 Others

Samarpal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others