Finality of Medical Board Findings: Allahabad HC Upholds UP Police Recruitment Rule 15(6) - 2025-07-16

Examining the Limits of Medical Review: Allahabad HC Declines Re-examination for Police Recruit

In a recent decision that underscored the importance of finality in administrative recruitment processes, the Allahabad High Court has ruled against a candidate seeking a third medical review for his appointment as a constable. The case, Mayank Chaudhary v. State Of Up And 3 Others , highlights the restricted scope of judicial intervention when specific service rules govern the medical fitness of candidates.

The Road to Recruitment and the Medical Hurdle

The appellant, Mayank Chaudhary, had successfully navigated the preliminary and main written examinations as part of the recruitment process for the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police. Having been declared fit in the physical efficiency test, his final hurdle was the medical examination.

However, the medical board at Reserve Police Lines, Sambhal, declared him unfit due to a "squint in the eyes." Dissatisfied, the candidate challenged this through the prescribed appellate process, leading to a re-examination by the Divisional Medical Board in Moradabad. Once again, the result was the same: he was deemed medically unfit. Following this, the candidate filed a plea for yet another re-examination, which was rejected by the authorities and subsequently dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court.

The Conflict: Personal Ambition vs. Regulatory Finality

The appellant argued before the High Court that the cause of action—his medical unfitness—arose after the declaration of the written result, inherently entitling him to further review. The State, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, maintained that the recruitment process must move forward according to established rules to remain effective.

At the heart of the legal dispute is Rule 15(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 . This provision provides a single opportunity for appeal:

* A candidate may file an appeal before the Divisional Medical Board immediately upon receiving the initial medical report.

* Once the Divisional Medical Board reaches a decision, that finding is deemed "final and binding."

* Crucially, the rules stipulate that no appeals are entertained if filed after the exam date, ensuring that the selection process does not become an infinite loop.

Legal Analysis: Why the Court Withheld Intervention

The Division Bench, comprising Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta and Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, JJ., focused on the potential collapse of administrative efficiency if the court were to permit endless medical reviews. The court reasoned that were judicial discretion used to bypass the finality clause of the service rules, the selection process—which must be time-bound—would suffer irreparable delays.

The court noted that the legal framework for police recruitment requires a definitive end to the medical scrutiny stage so that successful candidates can proceed to induction without ambiguity or lingering challenges.

Key Observations

The High Court’s reasoning is encapsulated in these pivotal observations from the judgment:

> "There is no provision for re-examination after the appeal before the Divisional Medical Board was also dismissed. If that is permitted, the process would be unending and selection would never attain finality."

> "The decision of the Divisional Medical Board on the appeal filed by the candidate about his/her medical examination shall be final and binding on the candidate and no appeal against it will be entertained."

> "Consequently and for the reason noted above, we decline to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, as in our considered opinion, the relief prayed for in the writ petition could not have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The Verdict and Its Implications

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that it "lacks merit." This decision serves as a firm reminder to future aspirants and legal practitioners that once an administrative body has adhered to the specified appeal mechanism and rendered a final medical decision under the 2015 Rules, the judiciary will be hesitant to step in. For the administration, the ruling provides clarity that the "finality" clauses in their recruitment bylaws act as a necessary shield against perpetual litigation.