Gopal Kumar And Another vs Union Of India And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4219 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2824 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Gopal Kumar And Another
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kranti Kiran Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel  for respondent nos. 1. This petition is directed against an order dated 29.6.2020, whereby petitioner's claim for medical examination by the review medical board has been rejected on the ground that the specialised doctor has not certified petitioner's fitness.

The controversy raised in the present petition has already been examined by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5049 of 2021 (Rupesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and others). The judgment followed in a subsequent decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1428 of 2021 decided on 17.3.2021.

Para Nos. 3 to 6 of the order dated 17.3.2021 are reproduced:-

"The controversy raised in the present writ petition has already been examined by this Court in the case of Rupesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and 4 others, in Writ Petition No.5049 of 2020, decided on 17.9.2020. This Court has examined the issue relating to maintainability of the writ petition before this Court by referring to Clause 15, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"15. COURTS JURISDICTION

Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to courts/tribunals having jurisdiction over the place of concerned Regional/Sub-Regional Office of the Commission where the candidate has appeared for the Computer Based Examination."

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Union of India placed reliance on salient feature number nine of the Recruitment Scheme, which reads as follows:-

"(ix) Court cases/RTI/Public Grievances relating to Notice of Examination, conduct of Computer Based Examination, preparation of merit list and force allocation of selected candidates will be handled by SCC and those relating to all other issues i.e. Scheme of examination, vacancies, conduct of PET/PST, DME/RME, Document Verification etc. will be handled by coordinating CAPFs/MHA."

He submitted that since the Staff Selection Commission was entrusted with the work of conducting computer based examination, preparation of merit list and force allocation of selected candidates, while all other issues were handled by coordinating CAPFs/MHA, therefore, it was the State of Bihar where other stages of recruitment were held, with which the petitioners feel aggrieved, which would determine the jurisdiction in the matter.

A plain reading of Clause 15 of the Recruitment Scheme, which defines courts jurisdiction, reveals that any dispute in regard to the recruitment is subject to Courts/Tribunals having jurisdiction over the place of concerned Regional/Sub-regional office of the Commission from where the candidate had appeared for the computer based examination. Indisputably, the petitioners appeared in the computer based examination from different centres located in the State of Bihar. The Regional Office of the Staff Selection Commission situated at Allahabad (Prayagraj) exercised jurisdiction over these centres located in the State of Bihar. In this regard, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant part of Clause 8 of the Recruitment Scheme:-

"8. Centres of Examination:

A candidate must indicate the Centre(s) in the online Application Form in which he/she desires to take the examination. Details about the Examination Centres and Regional Offices under whose jurisdiction these Examination Centres are located are as follows:-

Sl

Examination Centres & Centre Code

SCC Region and States/ UTs under the jurisdiction of the Region

Address of the Regional Offices/Website

1.

Agra (3001),

Allahabad (3003),

Bareilly (3005),

Gorakhpur (3007),

Kanpur (3009),

Lucknow (3010),

Meerut (3011),

Varanasi (3013),

Bhagalpur (3201),

Muzaffarpur (3205),

Patna (3206)

Central Region (CR)/ Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

Regional Director (CR), Staff Selection Commission, 21-23 Lowther Road, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211002.

(https://www.ssc-cr.org)

No doubt, under the scheme of recruitment, the conduct of computer based examination, preparation of merit list and force allocation of selected candidates was handled by the Staff Selection Commission, while other functions were performed by CAPFS/ MHA but Clause 15 of the advertisement which defines courts jurisdiction does not make any distinction based on the stages of recruitment or allocation of different functions to different bodies. The phrase "any dispute in regard to this recruitment" is wide enough to take within its purview disputes pertaining to all stages of recruitment irrespective of the body entrusted with conducting or holding any particular stage of recruitment. Resultantly, the submission based on division of functions amongst different bodies in conducting different stages of recruitment has no force nor the submission based on it relating to ouster of this Court's jurisdiction.

Reverting to the merits of the case, the short question which arises for consideration is whether the stand taken by the respondents in refusing to accept the appeal for holding review medical examination is legally sustainable or not. As noted above, the refusal to entertain appeals in all the cases was on analogous ground that the medical fitness certificate enclosed with the appeal was not by the concerned field specialist."

4. In view of the observations made above, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. So far as the ground for rejection of appeal is concerned, the Court has taken note of the terms of recruitment to further observe as under in the case of Rupesh Kumar (supra):-

"As noted, the main provision in the Recruitment Scheme providing for the remedy of review medical examination only speaks of medical certificate from Government District Hospital or above, to be annexed with the appeal. The medical certificate annexed with the appeal shall be evidence of possibility of an error of judgment in the decision of initial medical board/recruiting medical officer, who had examined the candidate in the first instance. The doctor issuing the certificate is required to certify that it is being issued 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. He has to owe full responsibility of the facts certified by him. The object unambiguously was to prevent frivolous appeals being filed. If the documents were found in order, the appeal could be accepted. The acceptance of the appeal would not mean that the candidate has been declared or accepted to be medically fit. It would only pave way for constitution of a Review Medical Board by the respondents. The candidates would thereafter be subjected to medical examination once again by the Review Medical Board and only if he is found fit that he would be moving to the next stage of recruitment. The requirement that certificate should be by specialist medical officer of concerned field came to be incorporated for the first time in Form No.3 at the place where the doctor issuing the certificate has to sign, mention his name, and put his seal. 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.

The submission of learned counsel for the Union of India that Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad, Deputy Superintendent, Government Hospital, Jamui who certified that two of the petitioners were not suffering from High BP/Hypertension was not competent to issue the same as he is not a cardiologist, has also no force. The qualifications of Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad are not in dispute. He has done Masters in Surgery and being a general surgeon in a government hospital, he was competent enough to examine the petitioners and certify that they were not suffering from hypertension. 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."

5. Controversy being identical on facts, this Court finds that the rejection of petitioner's candidature for his medical examination by the review medical board cannot be sustained in light of what has been observed in the aforesaid judgment of this Court.

6. Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 23.3.2020 and 20.3.2020 stands quashed. The respondents are directed to constitute the review medical board for re-examination of petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order."

In the facts of the present case also the request for review medical examination has been turned down on the ground that recommendation has not been made by a specialist doctor. The controversy raised in this case is thus covered by the above adjudication. For the reasons contained in the order dated 17.3.2021 this petition also succeeds and is disposed of on same terms.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021

n.u.