Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19964 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This writ petition was preferred before this Court seeking a direction for a fresh medical examination being conducted. On 18 September 2018, a learned Judge of this Court passed the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has been declared medically unfit by the medical board consequent upon his selection on the post of Constable, as his vision has been found defective due to squint. A certificate has been annexed of District Hospital, Aligarh certifying that petitioner does not suffer from such deficiency.
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, along with a certified copy of this order, before the Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh on 24.9.2018. 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, who shall depute an Officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to remain present before the Board on 27.9.2018. The petitioner shall also produce materials in support of his/her identity before the Medical Board. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 27.9.2018 and he/she 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 3.10.2018. 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 in the additional cause list on 3.10.2018."
Learned Standing counsel has placed on the record, the report of the Medical Board constituted by this Court in which it is recorded that despite the opportunity granted in the order aforementioned, the petitioner failed to appear before the Board on 24 September 2018. The instructions as provided, are taken on record.
The claim in this petition must necessarily be evaluated in light of the following pertinent and binding observations as entered by a Division Bench in State of U.P. And 2 Others Vs. Rahul 2016(3) ADJ 327:-
"This Court in previous decisions 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 a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India through Ministry of Railways vs. Parul Punia2, 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 follows:
"...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..."
Dealing with the parameters of the writ jurisdiction in such cases, the Division Bench observed thus:
"...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."
Accordingly, following the reasons assigned therein, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 cks