Dismissed¶16

Km. Pinki v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2025WRIA/8254/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Colour blindness; medical fitness test; Medical Board; Review Medical Board; recruitment fitness; unfit declaration; judicial review of expert opinion; Article 226 of the Constitution; superintendence power; mala fides; whim; fresh medical examination; police force fitness norms; Writ - A; Allahabad High Court; Ajit Kumar, J.; Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P.; Union of India v. Parul Punia; 2016 (2) ADJ 14; dismissal of writ petition; Km. Pinki v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any pleadings of mala fides or whims attributable to the Medical Board in rendering its opinion, this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the matter or to direct a fresh medical fitness test of the petitioner in supersession of the medical fitness opinion already expressed by the duly constituted Medical Board dated 25.04.2025.

Km. Pinki vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111399

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8254 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Km. Pinki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karan Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court questioning the decision of the Medical Board whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit on account of her suffering from colour blindness.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's eye vision is perfect as he got examined himself privately at several Eye Centre including AIIMA where his vision has been found perfectly right.

¶9

Per contra it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that opinion of Medical Board duly constituted by the respondent- recruitment authority cannot be judicial reviewed by this Court in exercise of superintendence power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ - A No.- 5668 of 2021 decided on 3rd August, 2021 in which relying upon paragraph 6 of the decision of the Division Bench in the case Union of India v. Parul Punia: 2016 (2) ADJ 14 which reproduced hereunder:

¶11

"6. Against the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner submitted a representation for a re-medical examination. The petitioner presented himself for a re-medical examination in which he was again found unfit due to dysfunctional ears. After the result of the re-medical examination, the petitioner got his ears checked by one Dr. Ashwani Kumar ENT Specialist, and according to his report dated 21.03.2021, the ears of the petitioner are fine, copy of the said report is annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition."

¶12

The Court vide paragraph 33 has held that "the opinion of the Medical Board or Review Medical Board is erroneous or capricious or vague and smacks of malafide, the Court should refrain from interfering with the opinion of Medical Board and Review Medical Board which is a body constituted of experts to assess the fitness of candidate as per the norms and standards prescribed in respect of fitness of a candidate who is

¶13

supposed to work in the police force".

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid judgments.

¶15

In view of the above, in the absence of any pleadings of mala fides and whims that can be attributable to the Medical Board in rendering its opinion, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter to direct for fresh medical fitness test of the petitioner in super-session to the medical fitness opinion already expressed by a duly constituted medical board, dated 25.04.2025.

¶16

Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Nadeem

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Pinki v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Pinki v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anshu Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Kant Pandey vs Union of India and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Singh vs the State of Up and Another

Priti Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kedarnath vs Badri Prasad Gupta

Gauri Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others