Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 September 2015. The respondent applied in pursuance of an advertisement that was issued on 14 May 2013 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board setting in motion a selection process for appointment of constables in the civil police and PAC among other posts. The selection process envisaged four stages namely : (i) Physical Standard Test; (ii) Physical Efficiency Test; (iii) Written Test; and (iv) a Medical Test. The respondent was invalidated on the ground of medical unfitness in the medical test which resulted in the filing of writ proceedings. In the writ petition, the respondent averred that he had been wrongly declared failed by the medical board whereas he had got himself examined by a doctor of VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital where he was found to be fit.

2. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 4 August 2015 directed the medical examination of the respondent upon appearing before the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College who was to constitute a three-Member team for submitting a report. The report was received on 10 September 2015. Based on the report of the expert committee appointed by the Court, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 15 September 2015 by directing that the respondent should be treated as medically fit and a consequential order of appointment should be issued within a period of six weeks.

3. The State is in appeal.

4. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the State is that there was no warrant or justification for the learned Single Judge to have issued an interim order for medical examination of the respondent by a team of Doctors to be constituted in the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. In this regard, reliance was placed on the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2008 (Rule) which provides for the appearance before a medical Board by the candidate before approval for appointment. In the present case, it was submitted that the respondent appeared both before the medical Board constituted by the recruitment Board and when he was not satisfied with the outcome of the medical test filed an appeal before the appellate Board. The review medical examination also resulted in a finding of unfitness. Hence, it was submitted that there was no warrant or justification for the learned Single Judge to direct a medical examination by a separate medical Board outside the recruitment process unless in an exceptional case the Court were to come to the conclusion that the Board which had been appointed by the competent authorities had rendered a finding which was perverse. Finally, it was urged that in the present case, when the respondent submitted a representation on 8 April 2015, no allegation of a demand of illegal gratification was made and it was only in the writ petition that a ground was sought to be inserted by making an allegation which had not been levelled at the first available opportunity.

5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it was initially urged by Counsel that, as matter of fact, no medical examination was carried out of the respondent and the medical report which has been produced on the record is a ‘fake’ medical report. Hence, it was urged that there was ample justification for the learned Single Judge to direct that a fresh medical team be constituted by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College. The respondent had been duly examined and had been found to fulfill the medical parameters and not to be suffering from a flat foot. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent is medically fit does not call for interference in the special appeal

6. Now, at the outset, it would be necessary to advert to Rule 13 of the