Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yashwant Varma, J.
Diwakar Paswan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U P And Others – Respondents
Writ -A No. - 14444 of 2020
Decided On : 12-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Devesh Mishra, Atipriya Gautam, Vijay Gautam (Senior Adv.)

Point of Law: once no mala fides are attributed and the doctors of the Forces who are well aware of the demands of duties of the Forces in the terrain in which the recruited personnel are required to work, have formed an opinion that the candidate is not medically fit for recruitment, opinion of private or other government doctors to the contrary cannot be accepted inasmuch as the recruited personnel are required to work for the Forces and not for the private doctors or the government hospitals and which medical professionals are unaware of the demands of the duties of the Forces

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226 – Service matter - Post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC - Direct Recruitment - Notification – Qualification – Selection process - Seeking to Issue a writ, order or direction quashing medical examination result of petitioner, (which has not been served upon petitioner and it was orally informed that petitioner is medically unfit having "Hydrocele Testicle") declared by Medical Board, for post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment - In pursuance of select list issued vide Notification – Direct Respondent Authorities, treating petitioner as medically fit in medically examination for post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment pursuant to Advertisement and select & appoint him finally for said post - Medical fitness is a subject best left for determination by experts and should not be lightly interfered with unless it be shown to be contrary to the standards prescribed or otherwise be liable to be assailed on other judicially manageable parameters.
Facts of the case: Petitioner who had participated in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for appointment on the post of Constable in the Civil Police and PAC has been declared medically unfit - That opinion which was formed initially by Medical Board constituted by the respondents, was affirmed by the Review Medical Board. Upon the petitioner being declared medically unfit, his candidature was rejected by respondents - Sole ground on which the aforesaid medical opinion is challenged is a certificate obtained by the petitioner from a Government Hospital on the basis of which it is contended that the decision of the respondents is liable to be interfered with and set aside.
Findings of the court: Permitting a reopening of a medical examination conducted by respondents solely on that basis would set a dangerous precedent especially when the Court by virtue of its inherent limitations would be wholly unequipped to undertake a comparative analysis or evaluation of competing medical opinions. Medical fitness is a subject best left for determination by experts and should not be lightly interfered with unless it be shown to be contrary to the standards prescribed or otherwise be liable to be assailed on other judicially manageable parameters - Rules confer finality upon opinions formed by the Medical Boards subject to an appeal against same before a Review Medical Board - Those Rules do not envisage or contemplate a challenge to those reports based upon reports and opinions privately obtained by candidates - Permitting such a course of action would not only be contrary to Rules which apply and bind candidate but also result in derailing recruitment process itself - Court finds no ground to issue writs as prayed for .
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for the State respondents.

2. This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, calling the record of the case and quashing the medical examination result of the petitioner, dated 07/09/2020 & 09/09/2020 (which has not been served upon the petitioner and it was orally informed that the petitioner is medically unfit having "Hydrocele Testicle") declared by the Medical Board, for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment -2018-II, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 16/11/2018 and in pursuance of the select list issued vide Notification dated 02/03/2020.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities, treating the petitioner as medically fit in the medically examination for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment -2018-II, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 16/11/2018 and select & appoint him finally for the said post, in pursuance of the select list, issued vide Notification dated 02/03/2020.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities, to declare the petitioner as a selected candidate finally and appoint him on the post of Constable, and send him necessary training for the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment -2018-II, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 16/11/2018 and in pursuance of the select List issued vide Notification dated 02/03/2020"

3. The petitioner who had participated in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for appointment on the post of Constable in the Civil Police and PAC has been declared medically unfit. That opinion which was formed initially by the Medical Board constituted by the respondents, was affirmed by the Review Medical Board. Upon the petitioner being declared medically unfit, his candidature was rejected by the respondents. The sole ground on which the aforesaid medical opinion is challenged is a certificate obtained by the petitioner from a Government Hospital on the basis of which it is contended that the decision of the respondents is liable to be interfered with and set aside.

4. The Court finds itself unable to countenance the submission for the following reasons.

5. The parameters of judicial review in respect of the opinion formed by a Medical Board was duly enunciated by the Court in State of U.P. Vs. Rahul, 2016 (3) ADJ 327. In Rahul, the Division Bench observed thus:-

"This Court in previous decisions has emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of the recruitment process and of the care and circumspection which has to be exercised before the findings of an expert medical Board constituted by the authorities are interfered with in writ proceedings. Undoubtedly, the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide enough to issue such a direction in an appropriate case. However, such directions cannot be issued merely on the basis of a request made in that behalf before the Court.

In a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India through Ministry of Railways vs. Parul Punia, this Court has emphasized the need for caution when candidates seek to question the correctness of the findings of a medical Board constituted under the recruitment process adopted by the authorities of the State, on the basis of a report obtained by the candidates. The Division Bench observed as follows:

"...In a number of such cases, candidates who have been invalidated on medical grounds produce expert opinions of their own to cast doubt on the credibility of the official medical report constituted by the recruiting body. In such cases, the Court may not have any means of verifying the actual identity of the person who was examined in the course of the medical exam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document