IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Gagan Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 620 of 2022
Decided On : 29-04-2022
Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 - Rules 15 (9), (g), 16 (g) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 23 rule 1 - Selection on post - Medically fit - Issue a writ directing respondents to treat petitioner has medically fit in selection on post of Constable Civil Police initiated vide advertisement – Held, Medical examination by Medical Board consisting of medical experts under Rule 15(g) cannot be said to be inferior to physical standard test conducted by a team of non-experts - Therefore, Court find that finding recorded by learned Single Judge in impugned judgment that assessment of physical standard by committee constituted under Appendix-2 to Rules, 2015 is liable to be preferred over determination made by Medical Board in terms of Appendix-3, is not sustainable - Court finds substance in submission made by learned Standing Counsel that this second writ petition filed for same relief cannot be entertained by this Court - For same relief, second writ petition is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Heard Mr. Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Singh Nagwanshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed made following relief:
(b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable Civil Police and also be sent for training on the post of Constable Civil Police, treating the petitioner to be not having any such physical deformity which has been notified under the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 and by the State Government, within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Award the cost of writ petition to the Writ Petition.''
3. Before coming on the merits of the claim set up on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Nagwanshi, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition by contending that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by means of Writ-A No. 12672 of 2020 (Gagan Sharma v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition has been dismissed by a Writ Court vide judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2021. Learned counsel for the State-respondents, therefore, submits that this second writ petition nearly for the same relief cannot be entertained by this Court and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file a recall/modification application in the said writ petition or file a special appeal against the order passed therein.
4. In the present writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow i.e. respondent No. 3 dated 16th November, 2018 in respect Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC Direct Recruitment-2018. By the said advertisement, total 49568 posts were advertised, out of which, 31360 were advertised for the post of Constable Civil Police, whereas 18208 posts were advertised for the post of Constable Police Armed Constabulary. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioner applied under General Category. The petitioner qualified in all the stages of recruitment and ultimately, he was selected on the post of Constable Civil Police in the final select list issued by the respondent-authority vide notification dated 2nd March, 2020. Thereafter the petitioner was called for appearing in Medical Examination at Reserve Police Line, Bulandshahr, which was conducted by the District Medical Board, Bulandshahr, wherein he was declared medically unfit due to having cubitus valgus deformity, which means excess curve in the elbows. The petitioner also appeared in re-medical examination, which was conducted at Reserve Police Line, Meerut by the Regional Medical Board, Meerut and in the said re-medical examination, the petitioner was again declared medically unfit on the same deformity. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court earlier by means of Writ-A No. 12672 of 2020 (Gagan Sharma v. State of U.P. and others), which was dismissed by a Writ Court vide judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2021, wherein the Writ Court relying upon the medical report of the petitioner, according to
Abdul Rahman v. Prasoni Bai and another
Ashok Kumar and others v. Delhi Development Authority
Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. T.P. Kumaran
Diwakar Paswan v. State of U.P. and others
Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and others
Union of India and others v. Punnilal and others
Uda Ram v. Central State Farm and others
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddiar and another
State of U.P. and others v. Bhanu Pratap Rajput
State of U.P. and another v. Labh Chand
Sheoparasan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Narayan Singh
Sabia Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others
M/s. Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others
M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation and another
M/s. D. Cawasji & Co. and others v. State of Mysore and another
Candidates must exhaust all available remedies within the recruitment process before seeking judicial intervention, and the findings of Medical Boards in recruitment processes are generally upheld un....
Medical examination by the Medical Board consisting of medical experts under Rule 15(g) cannot be said to be inferior to the physical standard test conducted by a team of non-experts.
Judicial review of medical examination decisions in recruitment is limited to procedural adherence and significant discrepancies, with higher fitness standards for disciplined forces.
Conflicting medical opinions from review board at same hospital (within days) and subsequent independent government hospital warrant fresh medical examination by different board for fairness to provi....
Conflicting medical fitness opinions from government hospitals entitle merit-selected candidate to fresh independent re-examination, despite initial and review unfitness, without impugning medical bo....
Conflicting medical reports warrant fresh independent re-examination for provisionally selected candidates.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.