Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9202 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ravendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
The prayer addressed on this petition reads thus:-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 3 to provide an opportunity of Re-medical examination to the petitioner for recruitment on the post of Constable, Civil Police and Constable P.A.C. 2018."
The petitioner has been held to be medically unfit by the Medical Board. The contention however is that a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer Kasganj evidences that the petitioner is fit and therefore, the opinion as formed by the medical board must be set aside.
The Court finds itself unable to sustain the aforesaid submission bearing in mind the following principles which were enunciated by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & 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."
Following the aforesaid decision, the prayer for issuance of the writs as framed is denied. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 faraz