Allahabad High Court
Mayank Yadav vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8284 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mayank Yadav
Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel who has appeared for the Union respondents.
This petition has been preferred for a direction being issued commanding the respondents to conduct a re-medical examination of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenges the opinion of unfitness as formed by the Medical Board. The record reflects that the petitioner was found medically unfit initially by the Medical Board and which opinion was affirmed by the Appeal Medical Board.
Dealing with the scope and ambit of review to an opinion formed by the Medical Board, the Division Bench of the Court in State of U.P. & 2 Others Vs. Rahul, 2016(3) ADJ 327, 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 Punia, 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."
Bearing in mind the principles enunciated in Rahul, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the orders impugned or to issue the writs as prayed for.
The petition is consequently dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
Arun K. Singh
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
