# Manish Kumar v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 58
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-07-30
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 356 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-kumar-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-46012
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Recruitment ProcessAssessment
of
fitness-The
matters
relating
to
medical
evaluation
of
candidates
in
a
recruitment
process
involve expert determination and it may
not be desirable to supplant the procedure
prescribed therefore as laid down under
the relevant recruitment rules and taking
any other view may have the effect of
derailing the recruitment process. (Para
16-18, 22)

In
Intra-Court
Special
Appeal,
no
interference is usually warranted unless
palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed
on a plain reading of the impugned judgment
and order. (Para 23)

In the instant case, the writ petitioner has been
found medically unfit by a duly constituted
Medical Board and the said finding w.r.t. his
unsuitability on medical grounds has been
affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board, and
further the opinion of a private medical
practitioner which was sought to be relied upon
in the writ petition also does not contain any
specific opinion that the petitioner was not
suffering from the ailment on the basis of which
he had been declared unfit by the Medical
Board. (Para 19)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contempt proceedings decides an issue or
makes any direction, relating to the merits of the
dispute between the parties, the said order
would be amenable to an intra-court appeal.

15. In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances, the preliminary
objection
raised
with
regard
to
maintainability of the special appeal under
the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is
sustained.

16. The special appeal is held to be
not
maintainable
and
is
accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A58
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 356 of 2020

Manish Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajneesh Tripathi, Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Recruitment ProcessAssessment
of
fitness-The
matters
relating
to
medical
evaluation
of
candidates
in
a
recruitment
process
involve expert determination and it may
not be desirable to supplant the procedure
prescribed therefore as laid down under
the relevant recruitment rules and taking
any other view may have the effect of
derailing the recruitment process. (Para
16-18, 22)

In
Intra-Court
Special
Appeal,
no
interference is usually warranted unless
palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed
on a plain reading of the impugned judgment
and order. (Para 23)

In the instant case, the writ petitioner has been
found medically unfit by a duly constituted
Medical Board and the said finding w.r.t. his
unsuitability on medical grounds has been
affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board, and
further the opinion of a private medical
practitioner which was sought to be relied upon
in the writ petition also does not contain any
specific opinion that the petitioner was not
suffering from the ailment on the basis of which
he had been declared unfit by the Medical
Board. (Para 19)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Vivek Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2020 ADJ
Online 0073 (Para 22)

2. Md. Arshad Khan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Special
Appeal Defective No. 206 of 2020, decided on
17.03.2020 (Para 22)

Present
special
appeal
challenges
judgment and order dated 15.11.2019,
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
- A No. 17576 of 2019.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The appeal is reported to be beyond
time by 211 days. Delay in filing the special
appeal has been sufficiently explained.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
State
respondents.
9 All. Manish Kumar Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
59

3. In the interest of justice, we deem it
appropriate to condone the delay in filing
the special appeal.

4. The delay condonation application
no. 1 of 2020 is allowed.

5. Office is directed to allot a regular
number to this appeal.

6. Challenge in the present special
appeal is to the judgment and order dated
15.11.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 17576 of
2019 (Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
another), whereby the writ petition has
been dismissed.

7. The writ petitioner is the appellant
before us.

8. The matter pertains to the 'Male
and Female Constable Recruitment 2018'
initiated pursuant to an advertisement
issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board.

9. The principal relief sought in the
writ petition was for a direction to the
respondents to permit the petitioner to reappear in the re-medical examination and
further that a seat may be reserved for him
until his grievance is redressed by the
respondent authorities.

10. The learned Single Judge, after taking
notice of the facts of the case, has dismissed the
writ petition in the following terms :-

"Petitioner
had
applied
for
appointment to the post of Constable in
U.P. Police but he has ultimately been nonsuited as he was declared medically unfit.
The orders passed by the Medical Board
and Appellate Medical Board have not been
annexed. The opinion of the Medical
Board, however, is sought to be assailed
with reference to a certificate issued by the
private Doctor.

The consistent opinion of the
Medical Board and Appellate Medical
Board would ordinarily not be interfered
with, unless there is some prima facie
material to doubt the veracity of such
opinion. The medical report of the private
Doctor also shows that petitioner is now fit
to resume duty. According to petitioner he
was diagnosed with Varicose Veins by the
Medical Board, and there is no specific
opinion even of the private Doctor that
petitioner does not suffer from such
physical ailment.

In that view of the matter and in
light of the observations made by this Court
in State of U.P. and others Vs. Rahul,
reported in 2016(3) ADJ 327, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the matter.

Writ petition, accordingly, is
dismissed."

11. Learned counsel for the appellantwrit petitioner has tried to assail the
judgment under appeal by contending that
after being declared medically unfit by the
Medical Board and also by the Appellate
Medical Board, the petitioner had raised a
claim for re-medical examination but the
same had not been considered by the
authorities.

12.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents has
supported the judgment of the learned
Single Judge by submitting that the
petitioner having been declared medically
unfit by a duly constituted Medical Board
and the said finding having been affirmed
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the Appellate Medical Board, there was
no
further
provision
for
re-medical
examination, and the writ petition had
rightly been dismissed.

13. We have heard the counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

14. The scope of interference in
matters relating to assessment of fitness
by a Medical Board constituted under the
statutory rules in exercise of powers
under writ jurisdiction, in our opinion,
would be extremely limited.

15. The Courts have, time and again,
emphasised the need for caution when
candidates seek to assail the correctness of
the findings of a Medical Board constituted
under a recruitment process adopted by the
State authorities.

16. We may observe that although the
powers of the Court under Article 226 are
wide
enough
to
issue directions
in
appropriate cases but such powers are
required to be wielded with caution and
circumspection. Matters relating to the
medical evaluation of candidates in a
recruitment
process
involve
expert
determination
and
the
Court
should
exercise caution in supplanting the process
adopted by the recruiting agency and
substituting it by a Court mandated further
medical evaluation.

17. Any such exercise in acceding
to requests of candidates who are not
found
to
be
medically
fit
for
reassessment on the basis of procedures
other than those envisaged by the
recruiting agency under the relevant
rules would result in the recruitment
process being derailed, which would
ordinarily be not permissible.

18. In a case where the recruitment
process has been carried out as per
prescribed statutory rules whereunder a
procedure has been prescribed for testing
the medical fitness of candidates by a duly
constituted Medical Board, the report of the
Medical Board is not to be normally
interfered with, solely on the basis of a
claim sought to be set up by a prospective
candidate.

19. In the instant case, the writ
petitioner has been found medically unfit
by a duly constituted Medical Board and
the said finding with regard to his
unsuitability on medical grounds has been
affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board,
and further the opinion of a private medical
practitioner which was sought to be relied
upon in the writ petition also does not
contain any specific opinion that the
petitioner was not suffering from the
ailment on the basis of which he had been
declared unfit by the Medical Board.

20.

In
the
aforementioned
circumstances, we are of the view that no
further indulgence is required to be granted
to the appellant-writ petitioner in this
regard. This is, more so, since it is not the
case of the petitioner that the decision of
the Medical Board was arbitrary, capricious
or not in accordance with the procedure
under the relevant statutory recruitment
rules.

21. No material has been placed on
record, or otherwise referred, to suggest
that the opinion of the Medical Board or
the Appellate Medical Board could in any
manner be said to be casual, inchoate,
perfunctory or vague. We are therefore of
the view that the Medical Board being an
expert body, its opinion is entitled to be
given due weight, credence and value.
9 All. Rampal Bhartiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
61

22. A similar view has been taken in
recent judgments of this Court in Vivek
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others1 and
Md. Arshad Khan Vs. State of U.P. and
others2 wherein it was held that matters
relating to medical evaluation of candidates
in a recruitment process involve expert
determination and it may not be desirable
to supplant the procedure prescribed
therefor as laid down under the relevant
recruitment rules and taking any other view
may have the effect of derailing the
recruitment process.

23. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal,
no interference is usually warranted unless
palpable infirmities or perversities are
noticed on a plain reading of the impugned
judgment and order.

24. In the facts and circumstances
of the instant case, on a plain reading of
the impugned judgment and order, we
do not
notice
any
such
palpable
infirmity or perversity. As such, we are
not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order dated
15.11.2019.

25. For reasons stated above, the
Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and
stands, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A61
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Writ-A No. 1620 of 2020

Rampal Bhartiya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rakesh Pande, Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.N. Singh, Sri Nishith Yadav

A. Service Law - Recruitment/Public
Examination - Candidates must be clearly
aware of the fact that it is not open to a
candidate to decide as to when an
application should be submitted and the
compliance in time schedule, indicated as
mandatory, if not read to be mandatory,
the entire process of holding examination
would stand dislocated. (Para 13)

The act and conduct of the petitioners as has
come on record shows that they were not at all
serious in submitting their online application
forms by depositing fee by the last date i.e.
10.01.2020
as
was
required
by
the
advertisement
dated
13.12.2019
and
the
ground, of internet services being disrupted,
taken for not submitting the same in time is not
at all convincing and reasonable, particularly
taking into account the fact that other several
similarly situated candidates have submitted
their application forms as per the advertisement
dated 13.12.2019 on or before 10.01.2020
throughout the State of U.P.

The examination is now scheduled to be held on
16.08.2020 and all the formalities of conducting
the same is complete and admit cards etc. have
also been issued to the candidates for appearing
in the said examination by the UPPSC and at
this last juncture, it would not be proper for this
Court to interfere in the present writ petition
granting any indulgence to the petitioner for
allowing them to deposit fee by online mode for
appearing in the examination for recruitment of
Block Education Officer in the State of U.P.
(Para 17, 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -
1. Rajendra Patel Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2016 (1)
UPLEBEC 331 (Para 13)

2. Sachin Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
987 of 2020, decided on 18.01.2020 (Para 14)