Allahabad High Court
Aman Kumar Pathak vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150261
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11113 of 2023
Petitioner :- Aman Kumar Pathak
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kranti Kiran Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ishan Shishu
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Instructions filed today learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ishan Shishu, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner who has been applicant for the post of Constable against the advertisement issued by the Central Government for Central Armed Police Force/Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau of which the examination was held in the year 2022, could not make it to the merit list in the category of general (EWS) on account of his falling short of the requisite height measured in the Physical Standard Test conducted by the recruitment authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his height having being measured as 169.7 cms, he approached a district hospital Gardianibagh Hospital, Patna where his height came to be measured as 170 cms. Accordingly, he applied for review by way of appeal before the recruitment authority for reassessment and re-measurement of his height.
5. As per the instruction obtained by Sri Ishan Shishu, learned counsel for the respondent, after the appeal was filed by the petitioner, he was again subjected to physical standard test and his height was measured as 169.7 cms. Thus again he fell short of the required height that is 170 cms. He has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ A No.-5668 of 2021 decided on 03.08.2021.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records and the instructions placed before the Court, I am of the considered view that once the recruitment authority has conducted physical standard test for the second time of the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him and his height has been measured as 169.7 cms rendering him to have disqualified and unfit for appointment and this Court cannot sit in appeal or review the decision of Board, after duly held physical standard test by the competent authority.
7. In the case of Ankit Kumar (supra) the Court relying upon paragraph 6 of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Union of India v. Parul Puni:2016 (2) ADJ 14 has held thus:
"6. Against the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner submitted a representation for a re-medical examination. The petitioner presented himself for a re-medical examination in which he was again found unfit due to dysfunctional ears. After the result of the re-medical examination, the petitioner got his ears checked by one Dr. Ashwani Kumar ENT Specialist, and according to his report dated 21.03.2021, the ears of the petitioner are fine, copy of the said report is annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition."
8. The Court vide paragraph 33 has held that "the opinion of the Medical Board or Review Medical Board is erroneous or capricious or vague and smacks of malafide, the Court should refrain from interfering with the opinion of Medical Board and Review Medical Board which is a body constituted of experts to assess the fitness of candidate as per the norms and standards prescribed in respect of fitness of a candidate who is supposed to work in the police force".
9. In view of the above this petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
Deepika
