# Md. Arshad Khan v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 10
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-17
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 206 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/md-arshad-khan-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-45943
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Scope - Intra-Court Special Appeal -
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. Any exercise of reassessment
on the basis of procedures other than
those envisaged by the recruiting agency
under the relevant rules would hamper
the recruitment process. (Para 8)
In the instant case the Court did not find decision of
the Medical Board to be arbitrary, capricious or not in
accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment
rules therefore interference with the impugned order
is not required. (Para 15)
Special Appeal rejected. (E-10)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was responsible for the decision by the State
Government or the Parishad on account of
any political or other influence over any
person. To us, the exercise of power of
relaxation appears to be in the interest of
Parishad because the post of Chief Engineer,
as held by this Court in earlier proceeding, is
a single post of considerable importance. The
enlargement of zone of consideration with
addition of relatively senior persons would
only benefit the public cause by enabling
selection of most meritorious person from a
larger group of eligible persons. Hence in the
facts of the case, we are of the considered
view that the High Court erred in inferring
that the relaxation was for some dubious
reasons or to benefit Rajendra Kumar
Agrawal."

29. In the above case the Apex Court
has held that enlargement of zone of
consideration with addition of relatively
senior persons would only benefit the
public cause by enabling selection of most
meritorious person from a larger group of
eligible persons. In this case also the zone
of consideration has been enlarged by
adding six more persons so as to enable the
State to select the most meritorious persons
for the promotional post of Chief Engineer
and thus, we are of the view that the State
Government
cannot
be
aggrieved
as
addition of some more meritorious persons
in the select list would only benefit the
public interest as held by the Apex Court in
the aforesaid matter.

30. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we find that there is no
illegality in the judgment impugned and
also find that special appeal lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)08ILR A10
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 206 of 2020

Md. Arshad Khan ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Awadh Narain Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Scope - Intra-Court Special Appeal -
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. Any exercise of reassessment
on the basis of procedures other than
those envisaged by the recruiting agency
under the relevant rules would hamper
the recruitment process. (Para 8)
In the instant case the Court did not find decision of
the Medical Board to be arbitrary, capricious or not in
accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment
rules therefore interference with the impugned order
is not required. (Para 15)
Special Appeal rejected. (E-10)

List of cases cited:-

1. Vivek Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Special
Appeal Defective no. 117 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)
8 All. Md. Arshad Khan Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
11

1. The present intra court appeal has
been filed seeking to assail the judgment
and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by a
learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 13935
of 2019 (Md Arshad Khan Vs. State of U.P.
and others), whereby the writ petition has
been dismissed.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant
before us.

3. The matter pertains to the process
of recruitment under the Police Constable
and
Constable
PAC
(Male)
Direct
Recruitment-2015. The relief sought in the
writ petition was for quashing of the
medical
examination
result
dated
27.02.2019 and the appellate medical board
result dated 08.04.2019, whereunder the
petitioner had been declared medically
unfit on the ground that he suffered from
the disability of 'flat foot'.

4. The learned Single Judge has taken
note of the fact that pursuant to an order
passed by this Court on 16.09.2019, the
petitioner had been medically examined by
a Medical Board constituted in terms of the
direction issued and had been again found
to be unfit due to 'flat foot'. The report of
the Medical Board produced by the learned
Standing Counsel was taken on record.

5. In view of the fact that the Medical
Board, constituted in terms of the direction
issued by this Court, had reaffirmed the
view taken by the District Medical Board
and the Appellate Medical Board, the
learned
Single
Judge
held
that
no
interference in the matter was called for,
and the writ petition was accordingly
dismissed.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. In the instant case, the writ
petitioner having been granted another
opportunity by providing for a medical
examination
by
the
Medical
Board
constituted in terms of directions of this
Court, and having again been found to be
medically unfit thereby reaffirming the view
taken by the District Medical Board and the
Appellate Medical Board, set up by the
recruiting agency, no further indulgence is
required to be granted to him 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.

12. 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.

13. A similar view has been taken in a
recent judgment of this Court in Vivek
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others1
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.

14. 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.

15. 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 30.09.2019.

16. For reasons stated above, the
Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and
stands, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)08ILR A12
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 206 of 2014

Director, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur Nagar & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Radha Krishna Tiwari ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Navin Sinha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri I.P. Singh

A. Service Law - Time Pay Scale - Financial
Hand Book: Fundamental Rules 24, 25
'Annual Confidential Report' is required to be
recorded in the service book of the employee
once in every year. The service book was neither
upto date nor entries made therein were duly
authenticated till 1994. On completion of 14
years of continuous service, the respondent was
entitled for 'time pay scale' subject to crossing
of 'Efficiency Bar' under his Service Rules w.e.f.
01.02.1977. 'Efficiency Bar is required to be
assessed on the basis of 'Annual Confidential
Report'. In light of absence of any entry in the
service
book
or
any
other
disciplinary
proceeding taken against the respondent, there