Allahabad High Court
Dheeraj Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14578 of 2020
Petitioner :- Dheeraj Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Singh,Adarsh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
None has appeared for the petitioner even in the revised call.
The instant petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4-The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, 19C, Tulsiganga Complex Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow through its Secretary to re-conduct the physical standard test of the Petitioner in fair manner in presence of Additional Superintendent of Police as nominated by the respondent no.4 or any other superior authority as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
The law with respect to the extent of interference with a medical examination conducted by the respondents has been duly enunciated by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others Vs. Rahul, 2016(3) ADJ 327 wherein it was held thus:
"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."
In the present case, we find absolutely no reasonable basis for the respondent to have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 for constituting a separate medical Board under the authority of the Principal of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. In the interim order of the learned Single Judge, there was no safeguard to the effect that the medical examination would take place in the presence of a representative of the State to at least ensure that the issue of identity did not arise. But that apart, more fundamentally, the objection to the entire procedure which has been followed is that without any reasonable basis or justification, the recruitment process and the procedures which have been laid down have been supplanted under a judicial direction. This, in our view, would be impermissible."
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no merits in the present writ petition which shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
Arun K. Singh/Krishna*
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
