Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for State of Uttar Pradesh VS Atul Kumar Dwivedi...

Checking relevance for NIRBHAY KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR...

Checking relevance for National Medical Commission VS Pooja Thandu Naresh...

Checking relevance for Tajvir Singh Sodhi VS State of Jammu and Kashmir...

Checking relevance for Radheshyam Meena S/o Dhamoli Meena VS State Of Rajasthan...

Radheshyam Meena S/o Dhamoli Meena VS State Of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 248 : Under the recruitment process, a candidate aggrieved by the physical measurement conducted during the Physical Standard Test (PST) may file an appeal by submitting a requisite fee of Rs. 500/- on the very same day of the physical standard examination. This right to appeal is explicitly provided under Sub-clause 1 of Clause 11 of the advertisement, which allows for a re-examination of the candidate by a medical board. The court emphasized that failure to mention in the result-sheet whether a candidate (especially from ST category) was declared successful on the basis of relaxation deprives them of the opportunity to appeal, and thus, such candidates must be given a chance to re-examine their physical standards by filing an appeal with the requisite fee. This establishes a clear locus standi for successful candidates to question their physical examination results through the formal appeal mechanism provided in the recruitment rules.Checking relevance for Srikant Ram, son of Sujadhar Ram VS State of Jharkhand, through the Director General of Police...

Checking relevance for Gadhavi Narendrakumar Hinglajdanji VS State Of Gujarat...

Checking relevance for State Of M. P. VS Gopal D. Tirthani...

Checking relevance for Vijay Syal VS State Of Punjab...

Checking relevance for Dhananjay Malik VS State of Uttaranchal...

Checking relevance for Preeti Srivastava: Sadhna Devi: Ashutosh Agrawal: Kartar Singh: E. S. Srinadh: Sweety Bhartiya VS State Of M. P. : State Of U. P. : State Of U. P. : State Of M. P. : Faculty Association: The State Of M. P. ...

Checking relevance for East Coast Railway VS Mahadev Appa Rao...

Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Anand Kumar Pandey...

Checking relevance for Union of India VS S. Vinodh Kumar...

Checking relevance for MANOJ KUMAR YADAV VS STATE OF U. P. ...

MANOJ KUMAR YADAV VS STATE OF U. P. - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 1242 : The petitioners, who had qualified in all stages of the selection process including the Physical Standard Test, were ultimately rejected during the medical examination. The court held that the Medical Board''''s manual measurement of height—without using standardized equipment—was flawed and could lead to error. The court directed the Medical Board to re-examine the petitioners'''' height using standardized equipment. This indicates that successful candidates (or those who have qualified in earlier stages) have a locus standi to question the physical examination, particularly when there is a procedural irregularity such as non-compliance with prescribed measurement standards. The court emphasized that once a candidate qualifies in the physical test, they should not be rejected on grounds of minor height differences unless there is a glaring irregularity, and that the rejection must be supported by a written order with brief reasons. Thus, the locus to question the physical examination exists when there is a failure to follow prescribed procedures, such as using non-standardized equipment.Checking relevance for Faizan Siddiqui VS Sashastra Seema Bal...

Checking relevance for Aakash Verma VS State of U. P. ...

Aakash Verma VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 268 : A candidate who is not satisfied with their Physical Standard Test may file an objection on the same day after the test. The Board shall nominate one Additional Superintendent of Police at every place, and the Physical Standard Test of such candidates shall be conducted again by the committee in the presence of the nominated Additional Superintendent of Police. All candidates who are again found unsuccessful in the Physical Standard Test will be declared unfit for recruitment, and no further appeal will be entertained in this regard.Checking relevance for PRABHAKAR VS DIRECTOR, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, (MADHYA KSHETRA), 8A-B, BELI ROAD, ALLAHABAD...

Checking relevance for Satyapal Singh VS State of Rajasthan...

Checking relevance for State Of U. P. Through Secretary, Department Of Home (Police Section) VS Bhanu Pratap Rajput...

State Of U. P. Through Secretary, Department Of Home (Police Section) VS Bhanu Pratap Rajput - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1623 : Under Rule 15(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Rules, 2015, and Appendix-3, a candidate who is not satisfied with their Medical Examination may file an appeal on the same day as the examination. The appeal must be filed on the day of the Medical Examination and declaration of its result. The appeal will be disposed of by an Appellate Medical Board constituted for the purpose within two weeks of filing. The Appellate Medical Board shall include an expert regarding the medical deficiency of the applicant. This constitutes the sole locus to question the medical examination of a candidate, and no further appeal will be entertained after this process. The Medical Board''''s report is final unless challenged through this prescribed appellate mechanism.

• Physical Examination of Successful Candidates - Main points and insights:
• Successful candidates are called for physical standard and efficiency tests, followed by detailed medical examinations (DME) ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"] ["BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Calcutta"].
• The recruiting medical officer is not required to record physical measurements but must mention physical standards as recorded by the PST board ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"] ["BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Calcutta"].
• There is no provision for publishing weight lists or replacing candidates who do not join, emphasizing that successful candidates are entitled to appointment regardless of subsequent vacancies being filled ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"] ["BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Calcutta"].
• Once candidates participate in the physical and medical tests, they are deemed to have accepted the process, and questioning the process post-participation is generally not entertained ["Janardan Vishvakarma vs The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"] ["Gautam Kumar Rai vs Forest - Jharkhand"] ["Gautam Kumar Rai vs Forest - Jharkhand"].
• The process involves multiple stages: preliminary written test, physical standard/efficiency test, main written examination, physical efficiency test, and medical examination ["DHARMENDRA KUMAR VS ABHISHEK KUMAR - Allahabad"] ["Abhishek Kumar Pandey, son of Shri Harinandan Pandey VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"] ["Prakash Bhushan VS State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Finance Department - Jharkhand"] ["DIPTIRANJAN MOHAPATRA vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["ODISHA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CUTTACK vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["PRASANTA SETHY vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["SATISH KANHAR vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"].
• The physical and medical tests are integral to the selection process, and success in written exams alone does not guarantee appointment; candidates must meet physical and medical standards ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"] ["BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Calcutta"] ["DHARMENDRA KUMAR VS ABHISHEK KUMAR - Allahabad"] ["Abhishek Kumar Singh & 3 Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. & Ors. - Allahabad"].
• The law emphasizes that candidates who participate knowingly in the process cannot later question the validity of the examination or the process ["Janardan Vishvakarma vs The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"] ["Gautam Kumar Rai vs Forest - Jharkhand"].

• Locus standi to challenge the examination process after participation is generally denied, especially when successful candidates have been declared and appointments made ["DIPTIRANJAN MOHAPATRA vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["ODISHA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CUTTACK vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["PRASANTA SETHY vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["SATISH KANHAR vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"].

• Analysis and Conclusion:

• The consensus across the sources indicates that once candidates participate in the physical and medical examinations as part of the recruitment process, they are deemed to have accepted the process and cannot later question its validity ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"] ["BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Calcutta"] ["Janardan Vishvakarma vs The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
• The detailed medical examination (DME) and physical standards are based on predefined criteria, and the medical officer's role is limited to recording standards already established by the PST board ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"].
• The legal principle is that successful participation in the physical and medical tests, along with the written exams, constitutes acceptance of the process, and challenges post-participation are generally barred ["Janardan Vishvakarma vs The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
• The law also discourages questioning the process after the fact, especially when appointments have been made, and emphasizes the importance of following the prescribed procedure ["DIPTIRANJAN MOHAPATRA vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"].
• Overall, the locus to question the physical examination of successful candidates is typically not recognized once they have participated in the process, and the process itself is considered final and binding ["ODISHA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CUTTACK vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["PRASANTA SETHY vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"] ["SATISH KANHAR vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"].

References:- ["Biltu @ Bittu Ganguly vs Union of India - Calcutta"]- ["BILTU @ BITTU GANGULY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - Calcutta"]- ["Janardan Vishvakarma vs The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["DHARMENDRA KUMAR VS ABHISHEK KUMAR - Allahabad"]- ["Abhishek Kumar Pandey, son of Shri Harinandan Pandey VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["Prakash Bhushan VS State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Finance Department - Jharkhand"]- ["Gautam Kumar Rai vs Forest - Jharkhand"]- ["Abhishek Kumar Singh & 3 Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. & Ors. - Allahabad"]- ["DIPTIRANJAN MOHAPATRA vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"]- ["ODISHA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CUTTACK vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"]- ["PRASANTA SETHY vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"]- ["SATISH KANHAR vs SATYABRATA SAMANTASINGHAR - Orissa"]