Dismissed

N. Praveen Kumar v. the D.I.G. of Police

Madras HC20 Feb 2018WP(MD)/1320/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate seeking appointment as a Grade II Police Constable. The petitioner challenged his non-selection due to color vision defect, relying on a private medical certificate. The Court held that the privately obtained certificate could not override the independent reports of the recognized medical board, which found the petitioner unfit twice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

N. Praveen Kumar Vs the D.I.G. of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1320 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

N.Praveen Kumar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The D.I.G. Of Police,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records of the 2^nd respondent passed in his proceedings in NA.KA.No.P1/447/2013 dated 04.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal and also direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a second grade constable in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivalagan For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to call for the records in relation to the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings NA.KA.No.P1/447/2013 dated 04.01.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services.

¶17

2.The Writ petitioner pursuant to the notification issued for recruitment to the post of Grade II Police Constable submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an application. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the written examination and successfully passed. The writ petitioner

¶18

¶19

was called for Physical verification and appeared before the authorities on 22.08.2012. The test was conducted and the writ petitioner had passed in all the physical examinations. After the physical examination, the petitioner was referred for medical examination. The medical examination was completed on 14.12.2012 and subsequently, the second respondent communicated a letter to the writ petitioner on 05.01.2013 stating that the writ petitioner had not selected due the reason that “Eyes not fit due to colour vision defect”. The order was passed based on the report of the medical board dated 22.12.2012.

¶20

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that one DR.Hajee M.Latheef Sathar, running Dr.Sathar's Hospital, Dr.Sathar Road, Anna Nagar, Madurai, issued an fitness certificate in favour of the writ petitioner on 12.01.2013. Relying on the said medical certificate, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner sates that the writ petitioner is having normal eyesight and defects as such stated in the impugned order cannot be taken up and consequently the petitioner should be appointed in the Post of Grate II Police Constable.

¶21

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states that two medical board examination were conducted in respect of the writ petitioner and the two medical board submitted the report stating that the writ petitioner is “not fit due to colour vision defect”. Therefore the medical Board examination was conducted twice in respect of the writ petitioner and the board given a medical board report stating that the petitioner is suffering from some eye defects and therefore the writ petitioner is not fit to be appointed to the post of Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Service.

¶22

5.This Court is of an opinion that the doctor certificate obtained at the instance of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. Those certificates obtained independently by the candidates through some doctors cannot be trusted upon. The doctors, who had verified the eyesight of the petitioner also not clarified certain details in respect of the examination conducted. However, this Court has to go by the report of the medical board duly constituted and recognised by the selection committee. When the selection committee referred the case of the writ petitioner for the examination of the medical board, the medical board also submitted a report holding that the writ petitioner is having some eye defect and unfit for appointment as Grade II Police Constable.

¶23

6.Thus, this Court has to trust upon the reports submitted by the recognised medical board than that of the doctor certificate, which was obtained by the writ petitioner behind the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ back of the selection committee authorities. This being the factum, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner has not established his case in respect of the medical examination

¶24

¶25

report and therefore this Court has no option but to accept the report of the medical board submitted in this regard and twice the writ petitioner was examined by the medical board and in both occasions it was found that he is not fit for appointment as Grade II Police Constable on account of his eyesight problems.

¶26

7.Thus, the writ petitioner has not established any acceptable legal ground so as to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Service. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The D.I.G. Of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶33

The Commissioner of Police,

¶34

Madurai City, Madurai.

¶35

1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 50246

¶36

¶37

AE/CVC/SAR3/15.03.2018/3P/4C

¶38

W.P(MD)No.1320 of 2013 20.02.2018

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N. Praveen Kumar v. the D.I.G. of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Praveen Kumar v. the D.I.G. of Police

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

Mahendran, S/O. Raju, Vs the Additional Chief -

G.Pepsilin Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T. Babu Selvan, Vs the Director of School

Packiathai Middle School, Vs the National Council for

R. Veeran, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Kannadasan Vs the Director of Collegiate