Allahabad High Court
Rijwan Ali vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. ... on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57698
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6497 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rijwan Ali
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home New Delhi And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seema Kashyap,Smriti
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S.B. Pandey learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey learned counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to re-conduct a detailed medical examination of petitioner in a fair manner in the presence of any other superior authority as may be directed and for consideration of petitioner's candidature by inviting him to participate in the remaining selection procedure.
3. It has been submitted that in pursuance of an advertisement, petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (G.D.) in Central Armed Police Forces. It is submitted that petitioner was found duly qualified in the examination whereafter he appeared in the physical efficiency test which also he qualified but in the physical medical examination, the petitioner was found unfit on account of hydrocele. The petitioner applied for review medical board which also vide his report dated 8th August, 2023 reiterated the earlier prognosis.
4. It has been submitted that the review medical examination report clearly does not indicate any consideration of petitioner's medical condition and has merely reiterated the earlier report in a bland manner. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the report dated 11th August, 2023 issued by one Reliance Ultra Sound Diagnostic Centre to indicate that no such abnormality exists with the petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn attention also to the report dated 3rd August, 2023 issued by district hospital Lakhimpur Kheri where also no such abnormality has been detected. It is therefore submitted that report indicating hydrocele problem in the petitioner is clearly incorrect and is contradicted by other medical reports.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that after the petitioner was found unfit in the medical examination, a review medical board was held in which also petitioner was found unfit on account of hydrocele problem. It is submitted that as per rules, there is no provision for any other medical board, since a decision of the review medical board is final in nature. It is submitted that private medical certificates can not be taken into account for the purposes of recruitment to post under the government.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner was found medically unfit in the medical examination with such finding being upheld by the review medical board. A division bench of this Court in the case of Union of India versus Parul Punia, Special Appeal no. 968 of 2015 has held as follows:-
"...... 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."
7. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that petitioner has been found unfit not only in the medical examination but also in the review medical board which was provided by the appelalnts. As per aforesaid judgment, such a finding can not be supplanted by any other medical board or certificate since taking any other factor has been held to be ordinarily impermissible and courts have been cautioned to supply the process adopted by recruitment agency and substituting it by a court mandated medical evaluation.
8. In view of aforesaid facts that petitioner has been found unfit not only in the medical examination but also in the review medical board provided by the opposite parties, any other mode of medical evaluation of petitioner is clearly impermissible.
9. In view of aforesaid, petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
prabhat
