Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 17 February, 2021
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13888 of 2020
Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents.
The petitioner is placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 17.9.2020 whereby the writ petitions filed by certain candidates have been allowed giving directions to respondent to constitute a Review Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioners therein.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is similarly situated and same benefit has to be accorded to him.
This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is found misconceived, in as much as, the same is based on misreading of the said judgment. The challenge therein was with regard to the rejection of appeals by the Review Medical Board filed by the petitioners therein on the ground that medical fitness certificate of the concerned field specialist had not been attached.
This Court having gone through the said issue had formed an opinion that the medical certificate of the specialist was not needed for entertaining the appeals by Review Medical Board rather medical certificate of the Government District Hospital was sufficient to entertain the same.
In the said facts and circumstance, directions had been issued to consider the appeals filed by the petitioners therein alongwith the medical certificates of the concerned doctors of the Government Hospital, to conduct re-examination of the petitioners by constituting Review Medical Board. Whereas in the present case, it is evident from page-'42' of the paper book that the petitioner had been examined by the Review Medical Board and was unfit on account of suffering from 'tachycardia.'
The record reveals that the petitioner has been rejected by the two Medical boards constituted in the recruitment process. The challenge to the findings of the Review Medical Board based on the misconceived argument of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained.
Even otherwise, the findings of the Medical Boards cannot be examined by this Court in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the State of U.P. and other vs. Rahul (Special Appeal Defective No. 70 of 2016) vide judgment and order dated 3.2.2016 wherein it has been clearly held that this Court is not competent to dispute the opinion of the Medical Board on the basis of the report of any other 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.
The writ petition cannot be entertained to issue any direction to the respondent to constitute a fresh review medical board.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Order Date :- 17.2.2021
Harshita
