Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2738 (ALL)

Mohan Kumar Gupta v. State of U. P.

2019-12-09

J.J.MUNIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution asking this Court to issue a Mandamus to the respondent-Authorities to conduct a fresh medical test of the petitioner by a Medical Board for the post of Police Constable in relation to Advertisement No. PRPB-ONE 1 (112)/2017. A further Mandamus has been sought directing the Authority to declare the petitioner selected and send him for necessary training relating to Police Constables and Constables in the PAC Recruitment Examination, 2018. The case of the petitioner is that he was declared medically unfit during the medical examination. This medical examination was held at the 34th Battalion, PAC, Bhullanpur, Varanasi where he was declared unfit with a remark that 'you are unfit by knock-knee and vision impairment'. Thereafter the petitioner appeared for a re-medical test on 19.08.2019 at Police Lines, Varanasi. There also, he was declared unfit with a remark 'you are unfit by knock-knee and vision impairment'. 2. The petitioner has asserted that he does not suffer from any of these medical impairments and is absolutely fit on medical parameters. It is asserted in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that after the petitioner failed in the medical examination and the review which is contemplated under the advertisement, the petitioner submitted himself privately to the medical examination of the Additional Director/Chief Superintendent, SSPG, Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi on 20.09.2019. There, he was found not to be suffering from the disabilities which the medical test and the review examination had found. 3. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Omkar Nath Rai has invited the attention of the Court to the certificate issued by Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi dated 20.09.2019, a copy of which is appended at page 24 of the paper book to show that there is 'nil bodily infirmity'. In the last paragraph of this certificate, it is mentioned by the Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi that 'I do not consider this a disqualification for employment in the U.P. Polytechnic'. In the last paragraph of this certificate, it is mentioned by the Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi that 'I do not consider this a disqualification for employment in the U.P. Polytechnic'. It appears that the petitioner submitted himself voluntarily to the medical examination of the Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi representing to the said Authority that he was applying for some job in U.P. Polytechnics and on that basis got himself medially examined on parameters that would be relevant for a job in the U.P. Polytechnics. The certificate does not indicate that the Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi examined the petitioner on health fitness parameters required for a Constable in the Civil Police or the PAC. 4. Dr. Amarnath Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the motion to admit this petition to hearing. He submits that the process medical examination at the time of recruitment is specified in the advertisement. It is a complete process and has to be accepted for whatever result it reaches. He points out that the petitioner has undergone both original examination and a review, and has been found to be medically unfit with the problem of a knock-knee and vision impairment. 5. It is argued that the petitioner cannot rely on a privately requested medical examination, even by a high ranking Government medical facility, to displace or question the correctness of the medical examination which is an integral part of the recruitment process 6. This Court has keenly considered the matter. It is true that the recruitment process is a complete process which prescribes various stages from the written examination to physical fitness test and medical examination, followed by character verification. In the advertisement, it is clearly indicated that the medical examination is to be done in the prescribed manner and if there is any objection to the outcome, there is a review permissible. The petitioner has opted for the permissible review and has failed there. It is true that there could be cases where there is an absolutely absurd finding given during the medical examination which is demonstrably so outrageous that it would be a travesty of justice to uphold it. The petitioner has opted for the permissible review and has failed there. It is true that there could be cases where there is an absolutely absurd finding given during the medical examination which is demonstrably so outrageous that it would be a travesty of justice to uphold it. It would be in those limited cases that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 may order the constitution of a special medical board, to wit, order a third medical test. In this case, there is no prima facie evidence placed on record to show that there is any flaw in the findings of the medical board or their finding on a review. The medical certificate from the Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi dated 20.09.2019 that the petitioner has filed on record, is apparently one which the petitioner has secured on a request made to the aforesaid medical establishment indicating that he needed it as a medical fitness certification for employment under the U.P. Polytechnics. The parameters for employment in the services of U.P. Polytechnics would be grossly different from what it is for the U.P. Police and the PAC. Also, no representative of the Police Recruitment Promotion Board was present during this Medical examination undertaken before the Mandaleeya Apar Nideshak/ Pramukh Adheekshak, S.S.P.G. Mandaleeya Zila Chikitsalay, Varanasi on 20.09.2019 on account of which, it would have no binding effect on the respondents. 7. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 70 of 2016, State of U.P. and 2 Ors. vs. Rahul, where a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of a separate medical examination that may be ordered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. After a review of authority on the subject, it was held by their Lordships of the Division Bench in State of U.P. and 2 Ors. vs. Rahul (supra) as under: "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. 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 Punia2, 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. 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." In the present case, we find absolutely no reasonable basis for the respondent to have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 for constituting a separate medical Board under the authority of the Principal of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. In the interim order of the learned Single Judge, there was no safeguard to the effect that the medical examination would take place in the presence of a representative of the State to at least ensure that the issue of identity did not arise. But that apart, more fundamentally, the objection to the entire procedure which has been followed is that without any reasonable basis or justification, the recruitment process and the procedures which have been laid down have been supplanted under a judicial direction. This, in our view, would be impermissible. We may also note that in an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Deepak Kumar3 it observed as follows: "Once such is the factual situation that there is self contained procedure, that has been provided for, being declared medically fit and there is a provision of review also in case an incumbent is declared medically unfit and here on two occasions respondent petitioner has failed to prove himself to be medically fit, then based on the report of a private medical practitioner no such mandatory directives could have been issued. That is totally outside the scope of scheme that has been provided for, in view of this, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be subscribed by us. Candidate concerned, at no point of time, has imputed any motive to members of Medical Board that they have wrongly for extraneous consideration prepared wrong report." We may also note that in the report of the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad which has been referred to in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it has been found that "there is mild collapse of medial arch leading to Grade-1 Flat foot". However, on a medical examination, the bio-mechanical function of foot was found to be intact. However, on a medical examination, the bio-mechanical function of foot was found to be intact. The report advised that the case 'can be considered fit as per the medical parameters set by a particular service for which the candidate opts for'. Thus even the report of the independent Board did not support the case of the respondent." 8. The reasoning that weighed with their Lordships in State of U.P. and 2 Ors. vs. Rahul (supra) squarely applies to the present case. No case for grant of relief is made out. 9. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.