Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18199 of 2018 Petitioner :- Aslam Parvez Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Singh,Sharad Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 07.09.2018:-
"Pursuant to the previous order passed, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, copy whereof has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. As per instructions, petitioner suffers from colour vision.
It is contended that petitioner has been medically examined by Sir Sundar Lal Chikitsalaya Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya, Medical Science Institute, Varanasi on 16.8.2018 and in the opinion of the doctor, petitioner is not suffering from colour vision. Submission is that the report, on the basis of which petitioner has been medically non-suited, is not correct.
In similar facts and circumstances, directions have been issued on 13.08.2018 in Writ A No. 14726 of 2018 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
In such circumstance, it would be appropriate to provide that the petitioner shall appear, alongwith a certified copy of this order, before the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi on 12.9.2018. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost with the Chief Medical Officer concerned. The Chief Medical Officer concerned would constitute a Medical Board consisting of three Specialists in the field of the level of Professor and Associate Professor available at the local District Hospital. The Chief Medical Officer concerned shall also inform the S.S.P./S.P., Chandauli, who shall depute an Officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 15.9.2018. The petitioner shall also produce materials in support of her identity before the Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 15.9.2018 and he would be medically examined by the Board of three Doctors on the question as to whether the petitioner is medically fit in terms of the Rules, 2015. The report signed by the Chairman of the Board would be sent through the Chief Medical Officer concerned before this Court on or before 18.09.2018. This report would constitute the basis for the Court to determine as to whether the report of the Medical Board and the Appellate Medical Board is liable to be questioned or not?
Put up this matter in the additional cause list on 18.09.2018"
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a Medical Board has been constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi consisting of Dr. Ashutosh Upadhyaya (Eye Surgeon), Dr.
R.K. Singh (Eye Surgeon) and Dr. V.P. Jaiswal (Eye Surgeon). The petitioner has been examined in the presence of Additional Superintendent of Police. As per the report dated 15.09.2018, petitioner's colour vision has been found normal and he has been found fit for recruitment.
In view of the aforesaid report, this Court finds the petitioner's grievance to have substance; in as much as, petitioner has not been correctly examined by the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board.
In similar facts and circumstances, this Court had proceeded to pass following orders on 28.08.2018 in Writ A No. 14726 of 2018 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others):-
"Petitioner in the present case had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police and has scored 422.8 marks, on account of which he has been selected. The marks scored by the petitioner is much above the cut off. He has, however, been denied appointment on the ground that he has been declared medically unfit. The report of the medical board as well as appellate medical board was produced, as per which the petitioner was suffering from structural deficiency of bow legs and Hyperextension of B/L Elbow. Since report was doubted by the petitioner, who had relied upon other medical certificates to show infirmity in the opinion expressed by the medical board, this Court had directed the Chief Medical Officer concerned to constitute a medical board consisting of three Orthopaedic doctors of the level of Professor and Associate Professor. The three doctors have examined the petitioner and have found the petitioner to be absolutely fit and that, 'the petitioner is not suffering from any disability' has been observed by the medical board. Such report is by the doctors of the State after the petitioner has been examined in the presence of a senior Officer of the Police department itself, i.e., the Superintendent of Police (Traffic).
From the materials placed before this Court, this Court is satisfied that petitioner has not been examined correctly by the medical board and the action of the respondents in denying him appointment on the premise that petitioner is physically unfit cannot be sustained. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh medical examination of the petitioner with regard to his fitness and to consider petitioner's case, accordingly, for appointment within a further period of six weeks, thereafter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed."
In the present case also, petitioner has been declared medically fit by the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on the previous occasion.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact.
From the materials placed before this Court, this Court is satisfied that petitioner has not been examined properly by the Medical Board and the action of the respondents in denying him appointment on the premise that petitioner is physically unfit cannot be sustained.
This petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents for the harassment caused to him. It would be open for the State to get the responsibility of erring person determined and recover the cost from such person.
A direction is also issued to the concerned authority to conduct a fresh medical examination of petitioner with regard to his fitness and to consider petitioner's case, accordingly, for appointment within a further period of six weeks, thereafter.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Amit Mishra