Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17610 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bhola Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.P. Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 6.9.2018, Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur has constituted a medical board on 17.9.2018 consisting of Dr. S.K. Pandey, C.M.S., District Hospital, Jaunpur as its Chairman with Dr. In N. Tiwari, ACMO/Eye Surgeon, Dr. O.P. Singh, Eye Surgeon and Dr. Deepshikha, Eye Surgeon, being the Members of the Board. Petitioner has been examined by the Board, and it is found that petitioner's eyes do not suffer from any infirmity, as is alleged. No squint is found in either of the eyes.
In view of the aforesaid report, this Court finds the petitioner's grievance to have substance; inasmuch 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 Anil