Chandra Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Heard Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The instant petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondents to conduct medical of the petitioner by the Medical Board for his appointment on the post of Constable in the respondent department.

¶13

The brief of facts of the case are that in year 2013, a notification was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow for filling up the vacant posts of Constable in police department by the police department. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable. He appeared in the written examination and successfully qualified the same. Thereafter he appeared for the physical test and qualified the same as well. Thereupon he was called for the medical test. His medical test was conducted on 06.04.2015 by the Medical Board and he was found unfit due to poor vision and his distance vision was found to be 6/24 in the left eye and 6/18 in the right eye. Since there was less vision in both eyes, he was declared unfit.

¶14

Thereupon the petitioner has claimed for re-medical examination at Pandit Dindayal Hospital, Aligarh where he was examined on 15.04.2015. In remedical test also, his distance vision on the left eye was found 6/24 and 6/18 in the right eye and the four member Medical Board has opined that the petitioner is suffering from low visual activity thus he was found unfit to be appointed in the police force as Constable. Being declared unfit he could not be selected. Subsequent thereto, on 23.04.2015 the petitioner himself got examined at Swamy Bhajanand Eye Hospital at Mainpuri which appears to be the hospital run by a private trust.

¶15

The vision of the petitioner is reported to be 6/6 and 6/6 in both eyes on the basis of which on the same date the Chief Medical Superintendent,

¶16

WRIA No. 25794 of 2015

¶17

2

¶18

District Hospital, Mainpuri has issued a medical certificate in favour of the petitioner reporting the eye vision by 6/6 in both eyes.

¶19

Relying upon the aforesaid medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Mainpuri as well as by Swami Bhajanand Eye Hospital the petitioner has filed the instant petition claiming that his vision was 6/6 and he has been wrongly declared unfit by Medical Board as well as Review Medical Board.

¶20

Thus learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the various judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches as well as Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.806 of 2024 Rishabh Kumar vs. State of U.P., Special Appeal No.597 of 2025 Sanjiv Vs. State of U.P., and judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches in Writ -A No.14726 of 2018 Sandeep Kumar vs. State of U.P. , has submitted that since the petitioner's eye vision is 6/6 as has been certified by the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Mainpuri which renders the finding recorded by the Medical Board as well as the Review Medical Board insignificant, therefore, his medical examination is required to be conducted by an independent Medical Board, to unravel the truth whether the petitioner has been wrongly declared unfit for selection to the post of Constable in the Civil Police. He claims that if he is found fit in the independent Medical Board, the direction be issued for his appointment.

¶21

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that so far as the selection to the post of Constables and Head Constables in the State of U.P. and the issue with regard to the medical examination is concerned, it is governed by Rule 15(g) and Appendix 3 of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015.

¶22

Relying upon the aforesaid Rules, it has been submitted that if a candidate is declared unfit and he claims that he is a fit person he can claim for his re-examination for medical which has already been done in the instant case by the petitioner. Accordingly, his Review Medical Board was conducted at Pandit Dindayal Hospital, District Aligarh on 15.04.2015 where again he was found having poor vision as 6/24 and 6/18 in the left and right eye respectively. Therefore, it was also observed that he was having low visual activity, therefore, he was unfit for recruitment in the police s ervices.

¶23

The instant petition has been filed relying upon the medical examination of a private eye hospital on the basis of which it transpires that Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Mainpuri has issued the medical certificate dated 23.04.2015 in favour of the petitioner reporting the eye vision of the petitioner to be 6/6 in both eyes. The petitioner has not produced any document to support his case before issuing the certificate by

¶24

WRIA No. 25794 of 2015

¶25

3

¶26

the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Mainpuri or any medical examination with regard to the vision of the petitioner was conducted in the District Hospital, Mainpuri. No report of the Ophthalmologist has been annexed in this regard along with the said certificate issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Mainpuri.

¶27

In view thereof, the same cannot be relied upon specifically when the Rules does not permit for any third medical test to be conducted of such candidates, who was twice declared unfit by the Medical Board, constituted for the purpose.

¶28

Again the petitioner had got issued another medical certificate dated 18.08.2018 which was issued by Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri recording his eye vision as 6/6 in both eyes. The aforesaid certificate also does not give the basis upon which the said certificate was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri. Therefore, the aforesaid certificates cannot be relied upon for directing the third medical test which is not permissible under the Rules, therefore, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition.

¶29

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. Rules 15(g) as well as Appendix of the U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, which reads as under :-

¶30

"Rule - 15(g). Procedure for Direct Recruitment to the post of Constable.

¶31

"15. Procedure for Direct Recruitment to the post of Constable.-

(a)......

(b)... (c)...

(d)...

(e)...

(f)...

(g) Medical Examination.-The candidates whose name are in the select list sent as per clause (e), will be required to appear for Medical Examination by the Appointing authority. Medical Examination will be conducted in the Police Line of the concerned District or at the place mentioned by the Appointing authority. Medical Examination will be conducted as per Appendix 3. The candidates found unsuccessful in Medical Examination shall be declared unfit by the Appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection."

¶38

WRIA No. 25794 of 2015

¶39

4

¶40

13. Appendix 3 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :-

¶41

"APPENDIX 3

¶42

[See Rule 15g]

¶43

Medical Examination for direct recruitment

¶44

The Appointing authority will request the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned District to constitute Medical Board for conducting Medical Examination. The Medical Board will consist of three Doctors, who will conduct Medical Examination as per "Police Recruitment Medical Examination Forms" as prescribed and codified by Head of Department in consultation with Director General of Medical Health. This form will be available on U.P. Police website and also displayed at the place of Medical Examination. Medical Board may take services of any expert as per requirements.

¶45

(1) The doctors will examine the candidates in accordance with the Medical Manual, if any, and announce the result on the day of the Medical Examination.

¶46

(2) The result of the Medical Examination will be displayed on the notice board outside the premises at the end of the day.

¶47

(3) Any candidate not satisfied by his Medical Examination, may file an appeal on the day of examination itself. Any appeal in regard to Medical Examination will not be considered if the candidate fails to file appeal on the date of Medical Examination and declaration of its result itself. The appeal should be disposed of by the Medical Board, constituted for the same purpose within two weeks of the appeal being filed. The Medical Board constituted for appeal shall have expert regarding Medical deficiency of the applicant.

¶48

(4) The members of the Medical Board who are found to give wrong report wilfully will be liable for criminal proceedings.

¶49

(5) The Medical Examination is only qualifying in nature and it has no effect on the merit list.

¶50

Note.- The Medical Board will examine the candidates and their deficiencies such as knock knee, bow legs, flat feet, varicose veins, distant and near vision, colour blindness, hearing test comprising of Rinne's Test, Webber's Test and tests for vertigo etc. as notified by the government from time to time. The Medical Board may get conducted other examinations after obtaining opinion of experts.".

¶51

WRIA No. 25794 of 2015

¶52

5

¶53

Rule 15 (g) provides that the candidates whose names are found in the select list as per clause (e), will be required to appear for Medical Examination by the Appointing authority. The medical examination will be conducted in the Police Line of the concerned District or at the place mentioned by the Appointing authority. The medical examination will be conducted as per Appendix 3. If the candidate found unsuccessful in medical examination, he shall be declared unfit by the Appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection.

¶54

Appendix 3 of the Rules provides for conducting of the medical examination. The appointing authority shall request the Chief Medical Officer to constitute the Medical Board for conducting the medical examination. The Medical Board will consist of three-doctors, who will conduct the medical examination as per the Police Recruitment Medical Examination. It further provides that doctors will examine the candidate in accordance with the medical manual, if any and declaration of the result of the medical examination shall be displayed. Sub-clause 3 of the aforesaid Appendix 3 provides that if any candidate is not satisfied by the medical examination, he may file an appeal on the day of examination itself. Any appeal in regard to medical examination will not be considered if the candidate fails to file an appeal on the date of medical examination and declaration of result itself meaning thereby on the date of the first medical examination itself the candidate is required to file an appeal against the medical examination result. The Review Medical Board constituted for appeal shall have expert regarding medical deficiencies of the candidates as pointed out by the Medical Board.

¶55

Thus, as per the aforesaid Rules, it is provided that on appeal being made by the candidate, the review medical shall be conducted by the experts to examine the deficiency. However, after the result of the Review Medical Board on appeal, there was no provision for further medical examination to be conducted.

¶56

In the instant case, initially the petitioner was examined on 06.04.2015 and was declared unfit due to low eye vision, as per eye vision of 6/18 and 6/24 in the right and left eyes respectively for distance vision, however, his near vision was found to be within the para meters and N/6 and N/6. He protested and filed the appeal. Accordingly, the Review Medical Board was constituted and the experts consisting of the Eye Surgeon, Physician, Sr. Surgeon and Ortho Surgeon examined and found that the petitioner was having distance vision as 6/24 and 6/18 in the left and right eyes respectively. Thus, he was found to have low visual activity BE. Thus, he was found unfit to the post of Constable.

¶57

Since the Rules does not permit for any third medical examination to be

¶58

WRIA No. 25794 of 2015

¶59

6

¶60

conducted, therefore, in the considered in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled for any third medical examination to be conducted. However, since the petitioner has placed reliance upon various judgements of this Court, wherein this Court has ordered for third medical examination on the grounds that the petitioner was subsequently examined by a recognised Government hospital and it was reported that he was not having the infirmity as was pointed out in his medical examination as well as review medical examination.

¶61

In the instant case, no such report has been produced from any of the Government hospitals with regard to the medical examination regarding the distance vision of the petitioner herein. Only a medical examination conducted by the Swamy Bajanand Eye Hospital has been produced, which was conducted on 23.04.2015, and it appears that on the basis of the aforesaid medical examination, the petitioner got medical certificate issued dated 23.04.2015 by the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Mainpuri without there being any eye vision test in the District Hospital, Mainpuri, as there is no document to support the same. Similarly, the subsequent certificate which has been apparently issued by Chief Medical Office, District Hospital, Mainpuri on 18.08.2015 is concerned, that was also obtained by the petitioner suo moto and there is no supporting document to suggest that any medical examination, whatsoever, was conducted in the District Hospital, Mainpuri or under the supervision of the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri.

¶62

For want of the aforesaid specific documents, this Court do not find any good reason to exercise its discretion to direct any third medical test in the instant case, specifically when the recruitment in question was of 2013, and was concluded long back.

¶63

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶64

February 4, 2026 VS

¶65

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶66

Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Smt. Rekha vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamla Devi vs Canara Bank and 2 Others

Praveen Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sunil Kumar Rana vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nilesh Tiwari vs State of Up and 3 Others

Pradhumn Pandey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others