Allowed

Vinay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru . Prin. Secy. of Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025WRIA/2796/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection for Constable post due to temporary hearing disability, later surgically corrected. Court directed authorities to form a medical board for re-examination within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to constitute a medical board for re-examination of petitioner's candidature within three months.

Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru . Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2796 of 2022

Vinay Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru . Prin. Secy. Of Home Civil Secrtt. Lko And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

1. Heard Mr. Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel
for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite parties.

¶12

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated
25.04.2022 rejecting petitioner's representation
for appointment on the post of Constable in
pursuance of the advertisement issued.

¶13

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner
was declared medically unfit for the same on
account of defective hearing loss and ear
perforation in the Medical Examination held on
10.03.2021. The Medical Board agreed with the
finding of the examining doctor.

¶14

4. It is submitted that the aforesaid disability
was not permanent but only temporary in nature
which is evidenced by the fact that petitioner
subsequently underwent surgery for the same and it
was declared that there is no perforation.
Certificate of attending doctor dated 25.03.2021
issued by the Mahamaya Rajkiya Medical College And
Hospital Ambedkarnagar has been brought on record

¶15

WRIA No. 2796 of 2022

¶16

¶17

as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition.

¶18

5. In view thereof, it is submitted that subsequent
to petitioner’s rejection, since the temporary
disability has already been removed, it was
incumbent upon the opposite parties to have
considered the same.

¶19

6. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter
affidavit has denied submissions advanced by
learned counsel for petitioner with the submission
that as on the date of physical examination,
petitioner was admittedly suffering from the said
disability due to which his candidature was rightly
rejected. It has also been submitted that as per
the guidelines issued on 02.03.2021, IIIrd Medical
Board is impermissible.

¶20

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by
learned counsel for parties and perusal of material
available on record, the facts as indicated here-
in-above are admitted to the effect that petitioner
subsequently underwent surgery for the disability
indicated on 10.03.2021. It is evident that the
surgery was conducted in a Government Hospital and
a certificate by the attending doctor has been
issued in April 2021, which is subsequent to
petitioner’s rejection.

¶21

8. The aforesaid certificate therefore evidences
the fact that petitioner's disability was merely
temporary and not permanent in nature and stood
corrected by the surgery he underwent.

¶22

9. In view thereof, the concerned opposite parties
are directed to constitute a Medical Board for re-
examination of petitioner's candidature in the
light of the corrective surgery. In case petitioner

¶23

¶24

WRIA No. 2796 of 2022

¶25

succeeds, his candidature for appointment on the
post of Constable shall be considered by
authorities concerned. The aforesaid activities
shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of
three months from the date a certified copy of this
order is served upon concerned authority.

¶26

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear
their own costs.

¶27

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶28

October 31, 2025

¶29

Subodh/-

¶30

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

Vinay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru . Prin. Secy. of Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru . Prin. Secy. of Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birpal Singh (Veerpal Singh) Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Defence Govt. of India and 4 Others

Shimmi Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and Another

Mahesh Kumar Soni Alias Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Anand Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and Ors.

Kavita Gahlot Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Homes Lucknow and Ors.

Aruna Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others