Allahabad High Court
Shatrughan Kumar vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10482 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shatrughan Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kranti Kiran Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rakesh Mohan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment and order dated 17.09.2020 passed in a bunch of cases with the leading petition being Writ A No.5049 of 2020 to challenge the decision of the respondent in refusing to accept the appeal filed by the petitioner for conducting review medical examination.
The reason given for rejection of the appeal as is clear from the order dated 29.06.2020 is as under:
"Due to opinion of concerned Medicine specialist opinion not attached."
The petitioner has invited attention of the Court to Form No.3 (page no.33 of the paper book) which has been issued by the doctor of a government hospital, Sadar Hospital Muzaffarpur, Bihar which states that the issuing authority had full knowledge of the fact that the petitioner had been treated medically unfit by the medical officer or Constable (G.D.) Examination, 2018 due to the defect namely "Under Weight by 4 K.G."
In the similar facts and circumstances, in the abovenoted writ petition, this Court has pointed out that the candidate along with the appeal was required to produce medical certificate issued by the doctors of the Government Hospital as a piece of evidence about the possibility of an error of judgement of the initial Medical Board/Recruiting Medical Officer, who had examined the candidate in the first instance. Such medical certificate would be taken into consideration, only if, it contains a note by the medical officer from the Government/District Medical Hospital, to the effect that it has been given in full knowledge of the fact that the candidate had already been rejected and declared unfit for service by CAPF Medical Board, or the recruiting medical officer.
The provision as contained in Clause 9E of the Recruitment Scheme, has been summarised by the Court in the aforesaid decision to state that the said provision only contemplates that the medical certificate to be annexed with the appeal should be issued by the medical officer from Government District hospital or above. It does not provide that the medical officer issuing the certificate should be a specialist in the field.
It was, thus, held:
"............ In my considered opinion, the requirement of filing medical certificate alongwith the memo of appeal should be interpreted keeping in mind the object with which the said provision has been incorporated. It should not be overstretched, lest the very purpose of providing remedy of review medical examination may stand defeated. So interpreted, I am of the considered view that the Certificates annexed by the petitioners alongwith their appeal were sufficient to entertain the appeals.
................Under the recruitment scheme, as noted above, the only evidentiary value of his certificate is in formation of prima facie opinion that there could be an error of judgment on part of the medical officer who examined the candidate in the first instance to warrant acceptance of the appeal for review medical examination of the petitioners. In the review medical examination, the petitioners will be subjected to medical examination by expert doctors. In case the petitioners were really not suffering from the ailments/ shortcomings pointed out during the initial medical examination, they would succeed. On the other hand, if they do suffer from the ailments/shortcomings, they would be discarded. There is no right of further appeal against the decision of the review medical board. In case the certificates furnished by the petitioners are relied upon at this stage, the respondents would not suffer except that they shall have to hold a review medical examination. On the other hand, if the petitioners really do not suffer from any ailment/shortcoming, as alleged, but their appeal for review medical examination is rejected at the very threshold on the above ground, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In all events, therefore, the appeals preferred by the petitioners for a review medical examination should not be dismissed in the manner as has been done by the respondents.
In consequence and as a result of above discussion, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The respondents are directed to constitute Review Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of production of true attested copy of the instant order before them."
The case of the petitioner herein stands on the same footing. This Court, therefore, is of the considered opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitioner for review medical examination could not have been rejected in the manner as has been done by the respondents. The reason for not entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner given in the order dated 29.06.2020, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to constitute Review Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of copy of this order.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021/Himanshu
