Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the findings of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board conducted in the selection for appointment as Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F.
As per the statement made in the writ petition, the petitioners were examined by the Review Medical Board on 21.09.2020.
The contention of the petitioner is that he was declared medically unfit without any proper assessment made by the specialist. It is then submitted that the petitioner had approached E.M.O., District Hospital, Fatehpur, and after being checked by the doctor, he was declared fit. A certificate in this regard has been issued by the In-charge Officer of the District Hospital, Fatehpur. The said report/certificate annexed at page-'29' of the paper book, has been placed before the Court to challenge the findings of the Medical Board.
Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondent to constitute a fresh Medical Board for medical examination of the petitioner.
To deal with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner suffice it to note that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Rahul namely Special Appeal Defective No.70 of 2016 vide judgement and order dated 03.02.2016 has held that this Court is not competent to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board on the basis of the report of private medical expert. A self contained procedure has been provided to redress the grievances of the candidates who appeared in the examination conducted by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board by providing them an opportunity to file appeal against the findings of the Medical Board and to appear before the Review Medical Board.
Time and again, the Court 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 Union of India through Ministry of Railways vs. Parul Punia decided on 11.01.2016, 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 under:-
"...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 examination by the Doctor whose report is relied upon by the candidate. Hence, even though the authority whose medical report was produced by the candidate may be an expert, the basic issue as to whether the identity of the candidate who was examined, matches the identity of the person who has applied for the post is a serious issue which cannot be ignored..." .
To deal with the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction, it is observed as follows;-
"...Undoubtedly, in a suitable case, the powers of the Court under Article 226 are wide enough to comprehend the issuance of appropriate directions but such powers have to be wielded with caution and circumspection. Matters relating to the medical evaluation of candidates in the recruitment process involve expert determination. The Court should be cautious in supplanting the process adopted by the recruiting agency and substituting it by a Court mandated medical evaluation. In the present case the proper course would have been to permit an evaluation of the medical fitness of the respondent by a review medical board provided by the appellants. Otherwise, the recruitment process can be derailed if such requests of candidates who are not found to be medically fit for reassessment on the basis of procedures other than those which are envisaged by the recruiting authority are allowed. This would ordinarily be impermissible."
In another judgement of State of U.P. Vs. Deepak Kumar in Special Appeal Defective no.849 of 2015 decided on 17.12.2015 it was observed:-
"Once such is the factual situation that there is self contained procedure, that has been provided for, being declared medically fit and there is a provision of review also in case an incumbent is declared medically unfit and here on two occasions respondent petitioner has failed to prove himself to be medically fit, then based on the report of a private medical practitioner no such mandatory directives could have been issued. That is totally outside the scope of scheme that has been provided for, in view of this, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be subscribed by us. Candidate concerned, at no point of time, has imputed any motive to members of Medical Board that they have wrongly for extraneous consideration prepared wrong report."
In the light of the above legal position, in the facts of the present case, it is noteworthy that the petitioner raised an objection regarding the finding of the medical board constituted by the respondent no.2 by filing an appeal. He had appeared before the Review Medical Board and was found unfit as per the required standards. On the basis of an independent examination of the petitioner by the doctor of the government hospital, he cannot be allowed to contradict the findings of the Review Medical Board. It is further noteworthy that the petitioner places reliance on the certificate which appears to be a "certificate of fitness" rather than medical examination of the petitioner as per the required standards.
The Review Medical Board had examined the petitioner on 21.09.2020. A subsequent medical report cannot be made basis to challenge the findings of the experts in absence of any allegations of motive to members of Medical Board that they have wrongly for extraneous consideration prepared wrong report.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 P Kesari