Point of Law: In a case where the recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules whereunder a procedure has been prescribed for testing the medical fitness of candidates by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by a prospective candidate

JUDGMENT :

(Per Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 211 days. Delay in filing the special appeal has been sufficiently explained.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

3. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the special appeal.

4. The delay condonation application no. 1 of 2020 is allowed.

5. Office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal.

6. Challenge in the present special appeal is to the judgment and order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A.No. 17576 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

7. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

8. The matter pertains to the 'Male and Female Constable Recruitment 2018' initiated pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board.

9. The principal relief sought in the writ petition was for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to reappear in the re-medical examination and further that a seat may be reserved for him until his grievance is redressed by the respondent authorities.

10. The learned Single Judge, after taking notice of the facts of the case, has dismissed the writ petition in the following terms :

“Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police but he has ultimately been non-suited as he was declared medically unfit. The orders passed by the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board have not been annexed. The opinion of the Medical Board, however, is sought to be assailed with reference to a certificate issued by the private Doctor. The consistent opinion of the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board would ordinarily not be interfered with, unless there is some prima facie material to doubt the veracity of such opinion. The medical report of the private Doctor also shows that petitioner is now fit to resume duty. According to petitioner he was diagnosed with Varicose Veins by the Medical Board, and there is no specific opinion even of the private Doctor that petitioner does not suffer from such physical ailment. In that view of the matter and in light of the observations made by this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Rahul, reported in 2016(3) ADJ 327, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.”

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has tried to assail the judgment under appeal by contending that after being declared medically unfit by the Medical Board and also by the Appellate Medical Board, the petitioner had raised a claim for remedical examination but the same had not been considered by the authorities.

12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge by submitting that the petitioner having been declared medically unfit by a duly constituted Medical Board and the said finding having been affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board, there was no further provision for re-medical examination, and the writ petition had rightly been dismissed.

13. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The scope of interference in matters relating to assessment of fitness by a Medical Board constituted under the statutory rules in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, in our opinion, would be extremely limited.

15. The Courts have, time and again, emphasised the need for caution when candidates seek to assail the correctness of the findings of a Medical Board constituted under a recruitment process adopted by the State authorities.

16. We may observe that although the powers of the Court under Article 226 are wide enough to issue directions in appropriate cases but such powers are required to be wielded with caution and circumspection. M