Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on 26.4.2022
Delivered on 11.5.2022.
Court No.66
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14207 of 2019
Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Abhishek Kumar,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner applied on the post of Constable for selection in the Police Constable and Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment-2015, wherein he was finally selected after qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), physical standard test, medical examination and after character verification he was allotted District Sitapur and appointment letter was issued on 22.7.2018 and thereafter he joined the training course at Chennai on 23.7.2018. However, during training by oral order dated 27.8.2018, the petitioner was not allowed to continue the training on the ground that his Right Hand Index Finger is deformed and thereafter by impugned order dated 2.11.2018, appointment of the petitioner was cancelled as he was found medically unfit due to physical disability "Post Traumatic Loss of Distal Half of Right Hand Index Finger" .
3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since petitioner has initially cleared the medical test and was declared fit after medical examination, therefore, he cannot be declared unfit by subsequent medical report. He also submitted that report of review medical board conducted on 22.10.2018, copy of which was not served upon the petitioner. However, it is not denied that copy of medical report dated 24.10.2018 which is annexed alongwith the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-2 wherein the petitioner was examined by medical board and it was found that petitioner suffered "Deformility (RT) hand, loss of (RT) index finger with the remark "Not fit for training in the CRPF"
4. Per contra, above submissions were vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the State who stated that the subsequent medical board is not barred even though the petitioner was declared fit in the initial medical examination. He has relied upon Rule 13 of Uttar Pradesh Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officer, Service Rules, 2015 that any candidate appointed to a post in the service, he has to be in good mental bodily health and free from any disability which is likely to affect efficient performance.
5. During arguments, doubt was created as to whether the petitioner actually suffers from deformity, therefore, this Court by order dated 12.4.2022, directed the petitioner to appear in person before this Court on 26.4.2022.
6. On 26.4.2022, petitioner appeared in person and doubt created was found unfounded as the petitioner suffered from "Post Traumatic Loss of Distal Half of Right Hand Index Finger". Argument of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was declared medically fit at the time of medical examination, therefore, he cannot be declared unfit in the subsequent medical examination which is not based on any sound principles of service jurisprudence. In case, during training if it is found that a candidate is suffering from such physical disability which is likely to interfere in the efficient performance of his duties, he could be directed to undergo a fresh medical examination which was done in the present case and the duly constituted medical board examined the petitioner on 22.10.2018 and due to the above referred deformity, he was declared unfit. It is for the employer to decide as to whether the nature of deformity (physical defect) is such that it would interfere with the efficient performance of his duties.
7. Court is not an expert body to determine as to whether the physical defect as in the present case would likely or unlikely to interfere with the efficient performance of duties. Medical board which is the expert body in this field which after medical examination of the petitioner has taken decision considering defect of the petitioner and was declared unfit for the service.
8. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed that petitioner may undergo a fresh medical examination, wherein the efficiency of the petitioner could be retested in regard to the responsibility to be undertaken by a Constable such as firing, holding a Lathi or otherwise. This argument on the face of it appears to be attractive, however, it could open a Pandora's box as it would amount to cause interference with the decision making process as well as with the decision of a duly constituted medical board and it would be contrary to trite law that the High Court under writ jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate authority and substitute his own opinion to the opinion given by an expert body i.e. three member medical board.
9. In view of the above, the outcome of above decision is that the petitioner is actually suffering from the physical defect ("Post Traumatic Loss of Distal Half of Right Hand Index Finger") which was found during training and the petitioner has undergone medical examination by duly constituted three member medical board and after examination it was declared that the petitioner suffered from aforesaid physical defect and accordingly declared unfit for service.
10. Rule 13 of the ''Rules, 2015' specifically states that any candidate appointed to a post in the service, he has to be in good mental bodily health and free from any disability which is likely to affect efficient performance. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the process whereby petitioner was medically examined again by three member medical board wherein he was found suffering from the above referred physical defect and as such he failed to pass the medical examination, therefore, he was declared unfit for service.
11. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not warrant interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date: 11.5.2022
SB
