Prakash Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 3453 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 

 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18974 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Prakash Singh
 
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 the learned Standing Counsel.

This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities, to conduct the Fresh Medical Examination of the petitioner, by the Medical Board, for the post of Police Constable and Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment-2015, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 29.12.2015.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent Authorities, treating the petitioner as medically fit in the medical examination for the post of Police Constable and Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment-2015, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 29.12.2015 and select and appoint him finally for the said post, in pursuance of the merit list, issued vide Notification dated 21.05.2018.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Appendix- 3(3) to the Rule 15(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constables and Head Constables Service Rules-2015, issued vide Notification dated 02.12.2015, which is unreasonable and arbitrary as it does not give sufficient time to file an appeal and secondly in absence of reasoned order any appeal is empty formality thus the said provisions is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution."

These reliefs have been sought in the backdrop of the petitioner having been declared medically unfit by the Medical Board as well as the Appellate Medical Board constituted in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015. A challenge is also raised to the provisions of Rule 15(g) of the aforementioned Rules on the ground that a candidate is compelled to prefer an appeal on the same date.

On 03.10.2018, this Court taking note of the submissions advanced proceeded to pass the following directions:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar matter in which the petitioner has been declared medically unfit by the Medical Board consequent upon his selection on the post of Constable, this Court has directed that the candidate shall appear before the Chief Medical Officer concerned and deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost and then he shall be examined afresh. He has produced a copy of the order passed similar circumstances on 18.09.2018 in Writ-A No. 19964 of 2018 (Nikhil Kumar vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others).

Learned Standing Counsel also says that in the similar controversy the order has been passed by this Court.

In view of the above, let the petitioner appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, who shall constitute a Medical Board of three Specialists in the field of Ophthalmology of the level of Professor and Associate Professor available at the local District Hospital. The Chief Medical Officer concerned shall also inform the Commandant 23rd Bn, PAC, Moradabad, who shall depute an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commandant to remain present before the Board on 24.10.2018. The petitioner shall appear and also produce materials in support of his identity before the Board on 24.10.2018. He shall be medically examined by the Board of three Doctors on the question as to whether the petitioner is medically fit or not.

The Board shall submit its report through the Chief Medical Officer concerned to this Court on or before 31.10.2018.

This report would constitute the basis for the Court to determine as to whether the report of the Medical Board and the Appellate Board is liable to be questioned or not.

List this matter on 31.10.2018.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad along with a certified copy of this order on 08.10.2018 and deposit a fee of Rs.5000/- for constitution of the Medical Board."

The learned Standing Counsel has placed on the record in sealed cover the report of the Board constituted by this Court pursuant to the order aforementioned. The Board has reported that the petitioner chose not to appear before the concerned Medical Board on the date fixed. The report of the Board constituted by this Court is taken on record and marked as 'X' for the purpose of identification.

Be that as it may, this Court proceeds to evaluate the prayer of the petitioner with regard to a fresh Medical Board being constituted for considering his physical fitness all over again.

The petitioner essentially calls upon the Court to rule on and evaluate the correctness of the reports submitted by experts in their fields. These submissions and reliefs have evidently been sought and addressed without bearing in mind the contours of the writ jurisdiction. The opinion of a Medical Board is the outcome of an evaluation by experts in the subject. Except in exceptional situations such as where a finding of unfitness is returned in violation or disregard of the standards prescribed or on grounds which may call upon this Court to consider the correctness of the opinion on a legal plain, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to either interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion with respect to the medical fitness of a particular candidate. Treading this path may also cause serious prejudice and jeopardise the recruitment process itself. The Court is constrained to enter this note of caution conscious of its own limitations with respect to adjudging the medical fitness or otherwise of a particular candidate. In the ultimate analysis, it would be pertinent to emphasise that such requests must be entertained with due care and circumspection.

Rather than burden this judgment with a plethora of precedents which govern the field, the Court deems it apposite only to reproduce the following observations as entered by a Division Bench of the Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Rahul1:

"8. 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.

9. In a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India through Ministry of Railways v. Parul Punia, Special Appeal Defective No. 968 of 2015, decided on 11th January, 2015, 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..."

10. 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."

Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind which clearly bind, in the considered view of this Court, the reliefs as sought are clearly misconceived and untenable.

Insofar as the challenge to Rule 15 is concerned, in the facts of the present case, this Court finds no ground to either entertain or even countenance the said challenge, since it is not the case of the petitioner that he was handicapped by the requirements of Rule 15 of preferring an appeal on the same date. No factual foundation on this score has been laid in the writ petition. Even otherwise this issue ceases to have any further relevance in light of the conduct of the petitioner himself, who wilfully chose not to appear before the Board constituted even by this Court. The question of, therefore, adjudging the validity of Rule 15 does not arise. As is well settled, the validity of a statutory provision would not merit consideration in the abstract.

Consequently and for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.10.2018

Imroz/Arun Kumar Singh

(Yashwant Varma, J.)