# Purushottam Narayan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 902
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2469 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/purushottam-narayan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48608
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Recruitment - Medical
Examination - On the basis of a report
issued by a Private Doctor or Doctor of a
Government Hospital, which has not been
authorized by the Recruitment Board, the
opinion given by the Medical Board and
the Appellate Medical Board, being an
Expert Body, cannot be annulled and the
same are entitled to be given due weight
and credence. Petitioner has not produced any
document, material or evidence, from which it is
established that the medical examinations of the
petitioner conducted by the Medical Board and
the Appellate Medical Board are incorrect. (Para
7, 11)

B. 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 12)

The opinion of a Medical Board is the outcome
of an evaluation by experts in the subject.
Except in exceptional situations such as where a
finding of unfitness is returned in violation or
disregard of the standards prescribed or on
grounds which may call upon this Court to
consider the correctness of the opinion on a
legal plain, it would be wholly inappropriate for
this Court to either interfere with the same or
substitute its own opinion with respect to the
medical fitness of a particular candidate.
Treading this path may also cause serious
prejudice
and
jeopardise
the
recruitment
process itself. In the ultimate analysis, it would
be pertinent to emphasise that such requests
must be entertained with due care and
circumspection. (Para 12)

C. Principle of binding precedent - In the
matters of interlocutory orders, principle
of binding precedent cannot be said to
apply. However, the need for consistency
approach and uniformity in the exercise of
judicial discretion respecting similar causes and
the desirability to eliminate occasions for
grievance of discriminatory treatment requires
that all similar matters should receive similar
treatment except where factual differences
require a different treatment so that there is an
assurance
of
consistency,
uniformity,
predictability and certainty of judicial approach.

D. For same relief, second writ petition is
not
maintainable.
The
proper
remedy
available to the petitioner was to file a recall
application in his earlier writ petition referred to
above or to file a Special Appeal against the
judgment and order passed in the said writ
petition.

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)
5 All. Purushottam Narayan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
Precedent followed:

## Text

902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a party cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate. This principle has been
applied by the learned Single Judge in the
judgment impugned in the leading appeal,
particularly, relying on the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab and
others vs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, (2014)
15 SCC 144; and in our opinion, rightly so.

17. In the result, these appeals fail
and are dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A902
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 2469 of 2022

Purushottam Narayan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Babu

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Recruitment - Medical
Examination - On the basis of a report
issued by a Private Doctor or Doctor of a
Government Hospital, which has not been
authorized by the Recruitment Board, the
opinion given by the Medical Board and
the Appellate Medical Board, being an
Expert Body, cannot be annulled and the
same are entitled to be given due weight
and credence. Petitioner has not produced any
document, material or evidence, from which it is
established that the medical examinations of the
petitioner conducted by the Medical Board and
the Appellate Medical Board are incorrect. (Para
7, 11)

B. 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 12)

The opinion of a Medical Board is the outcome
of an evaluation by experts in the subject.
Except in exceptional situations such as where a
finding of unfitness is returned in violation or
disregard of the standards prescribed or on
grounds which may call upon this Court to
consider the correctness of the opinion on a
legal plain, it would be wholly inappropriate for
this Court to either interfere with the same or
substitute its own opinion with respect to the
medical fitness of a particular candidate.
Treading this path may also cause serious
prejudice
and
jeopardise
the
recruitment
process itself. In the ultimate analysis, it would
be pertinent to emphasise that such requests
must be entertained with due care and
circumspection. (Para 12)

C. Principle of binding precedent - In the
matters of interlocutory orders, principle
of binding precedent cannot be said to
apply. However, the need for consistency
approach and uniformity in the exercise of
judicial discretion respecting similar causes and
the desirability to eliminate occasions for
grievance of discriminatory treatment requires
that all similar matters should receive similar
treatment except where factual differences
require a different treatment so that there is an
assurance
of
consistency,
uniformity,
predictability and certainty of judicial approach.

D. For same relief, second writ petition is
not
maintainable.
The
proper
remedy
available to the petitioner was to file a recall
application in his earlier writ petition referred to
above or to file a Special Appeal against the
judgment and order passed in the said writ
petition.

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)
5 All. Purushottam Narayan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
Precedent followed:

1. Ankit Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
5668 of 2021, decided on 03.08.2021) (Para 4)

2. Diwakar Paswan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2021
(1) ADJ 454 (Para 12)

3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Bhanu Pratap Rajput,
2021 (2) ADJ 451 (Para 12)

4. Vishnu Traders Vs St. of Har., 1995 Suppl (1)
SCC 461 (Para 16)

5. Smt. Ramapati Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P., AIR
1997 All. 170 (Para 19)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Devesh Shahi (General Male Category) Vs St.
of U.P. & ors., Special Appeal No. 458 of 2017,
final judgment of Division Bench of this Court
dated 07.09.2017 (Para 7, 16)

2. Sandeep Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A
No. 14726 of 2018, final judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 28.08.2018
(Para 7, 16)

3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Lav Kumar Saroj & anr.,
Special Appeal Defective No. 639 of 2020, final
judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated
23.11.2020 (Para 7, 16)

4. Ashad Varsee Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
8389 of 2019, final judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court dated 08.07.2019) (Para 7,
16)

Interim Orders not binding:

1. Vikram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
13496 of 2021, interim order of a learned Single
Judge of this Court dated 18.11.2021 (Para 7,
17)

2. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., interim
order
of
a
learned
Single
Judge
dated
16.12.2021 (Para 7, 17)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anil Babu, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav
Ojha, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
assisted by Mr. S.C. Upadhyay, learned
counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has made following
relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
directing the respondent authorities to
constitute a new Medical Board in Etawah
or any other District for the fresh Medical
Examination of the Petitioner under the
supervision of the medical experts.

........."

3. Petitioner has also approached this
Court earlier by means of Writ-A No.
13548 of 2021 (Purshottam Narayan VS.
State of U.P. Through Its Principal
Secretary Home & 2 Others) for following
relief:

(i) calling for records, (ii)
quashing the result of the medical
examination conducted by the Regional
Health Examination dated 26th August,
2021, by which the candidatures of the
petitioner has been rejected due to
varicose
vein,
(iii)
considering
the
candidature of the petitioner against the
selected post, and (iv) conducting the
medical test again."

4. The said writ petition has been
dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide judgment and order dated 18th
October, 2021 in light of the detailed
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Court
in the case of Ankit Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. & 3 Others (Writ-A No. 5668 of 2021,
decided on 3rd August, 2021).
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. It is the case of the petitioner that
an advertisement was issued by the Police
Recruitment Board of the State of Uttar
Pradesh being Advertisement No. P.R.P.B.
Ek.-1(138)/2018 II in the year 2018 for the
post of Constable Civil Police and
Constable PAC. The petitioner being fully
eligible applied for the said post under
general category and he was called for
appearing in written test (computer based
test). The petitioner appeared and qualified
in the said written examination and
thereafter appeared in Physical Efficiency
Test/Physical
Standard
Test/Document
Verification (P.S.T./D.V.), wherein he
qualified, hence the petitioner was declared
successful and his name was placed at
serial no. 2435 of the select list for the post
of Constable PAC under general category.
On 13th August, 2021, the petitioner was
called for medical examination, whereby he
has
orally
been
informed
that
his
candidature has been cancelled as he is
suffering from varicose vein but the copy
of the rejection order has not been supplied
to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, petitioner filed an appeal before the
Regional
Medical
Committee,
Agra
Division, Agra, wherein a date was fixed
for medical examination on 22nd August,
2021 but the medical examination of the
petitioner was conducted on 26th August,
2021. In the said medical examination,
which was conducted under order of the
Regional
Medical
Committee/Appellate
Medical
Board,
the
petitioner
was
unsuccessful. This time again, no written
order was supplied to the petitioner as to
for which reason, the petitioner was
declared unsuccessful in both the medical
examination. The petitioner was informed
orally by the Appellate Medical Board that
he was found unsuccessful in the medical
examination due to Varicose Veins. The
petitioner after having knowledge of the
medical deficiency of the Varicose Veins,
which was orally informed, approached the
Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Medical College
and Associated Hospital, Kanpur (U.P.
Government Medical College) on 29th
December,
2021
for
detecting
his
deficiency of Varicose Veins, where the
petitioner was medically examined with
due diligence on 29th December, 2021 and
he was absolutely found fit and no disease
of Varicose Veins was seen by the
Assistant
Professor
of
Orthopedic
Department of the G.S.V. Medical College,
Kanpur.

6. Further , it is the case of the
petitioner that since in two medical
examinations conducted by the respondentauthorities
the
petitioner
was
orally
informed by the Medical Boards that he is
medically unfit due to the detection of
Varicose Veins in the medical report of the
petitioner,
whereas
in
the
medical
examination conducted by the Assistant
Professor of Orthopedic Department of the
G.S.V. Medical College, Kanpur, wherein
the petitioner was found fit and perfect ,
rather no deficiency of varicose veins was
detected in the medical report of the
petitioner,
therefore,
seeing
the
contradictory medical reports, in the
interest of justice, this Court may direct the
concerned respondent to constitute a new
medical board in Etawah or any other
district under the supervision of the
Medical Experts to conduct the fresh
medical examination of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has successfully
passed
the
recruitment
examination,
physical
efficient
tests
and
physical
standard test, is entitled to be appointed on
the post of P.A.C. constable. The petitioner
was wrongly shown medically unfit due to
5 All. Purushottam Narayan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905
deficiency of Varicose Veins, because the
medical examination conducted on 13th
August, 2021 was in arbitrary manner and
without following the procedure, rules and
instructions given in the brochure inasmuch
as the medical examination conducted by
the Appellate Medical Board on 26th
August, 2021 was nothing but empty
formality,
whereas
in
the
medical
examination conducted by of Orthopedic
Department of the G.S.V. Medical College,
Kanpur, the petitioner was found medically
fit and deficiency of Varicose Veins was
not found in the medical report of the
petitioner.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner,
therefore,
submits
that
considering the aforesaid contradictions,
which occurred in the aforesaid medical
examination reports of the petitioner, this
Court may direct the concerned respondent
to constitute a new medical board in
Etawah or any other district under the
supervision of the Medical Experts to
conduct the fresh medical examination of
the petitioner, so that the petitioner may be
selected on the said post. In support of his
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance upon
following final judgments and interim
orders of this Court:

1. Devesh Shahi (General Male
Category) VS. State of U.P. & Others
(Special Appeal No. 458 of 2017, final
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
dated 7th September, 2017;

2. Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. & Others (Writ-A No. 14726 of 2018,
final judgment of a learned Single Judge of
this Court dated 28th August, 2018;

3. State of U.P. & 3 Others VS.
Lav Kumar Saroj and Another (Special
Appeal Defective No. 639 of 2020, final
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
dated 23rd November, 2020;

4. Ashad Varsee Vs. State of U.P.
& Others (Writ-A No. 8389 of 2019, final
judgment of a learned Single Judge of this
Court dated 8th July, 2019;

5. Vikram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
& Others (Writ-A No. 13496 of 2021,
interim order of a learned Single Judge of
this Court dated 18th November, 2021;and

6. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
& Others (Ram Kumar VS. State of U.P. &
Others), interim order of a learned Single
Judge dated 16.12.2021.

8. On the other-hand, learned Counsel
for the State-respondents submits that there
is no provision of re-medical in the case.
The candidature of the petitioner has
rightly been rejected by the Medical Boards
referred to above. Apart from the above,
learned Standing Counsel submits that
nearly for the same relief specifically
questioning
the
medical
examination
reports of the petitioner dated 13th August,
2021 and 26th August, 2021, the first
medical examination conducted by the
Medical Examination Board constituted by
the
Recruitment
Board
and
second
conducted by the Appellate Medical
Examination Board, earlier the petitioner
has filed Writ-A No. 13548 of 2021
(Purshottam Narayan VS. State of U.P.
Through Its Principal Secretary Home & 2
Others), which has been dismissed by a
Writ Court dated 18th October, 2021 after
following observations:

"10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not placed any material on
record to demonstrate that report of
Medical Board as well as Review Medical
Board is erroneous or incorrect. This Court
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the case of Ankit Kumar (supra) has held
that the opinion given by the Medical
Board as well as Review Medical Board
should not be taken lightly and should be
given due credence and it should not be
annulled or set aside on the basis of the
report of some private doctor or by a
government
hospital
obtained
by
a
candidate from outside.

11.Since,
the
controversy
involved in the present writ petition has
already been decided by this Court in the
case of Ankit Kumar (supra), therefore,
present writ petition is also dismissed with
no order as to cost."

9. Learned counsel for the Staterespondents, therefore, submits that this
second writ petition nearly for the same
relief cannot be entertained by this Court
and the same is liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone. The proper remedy
available to the petitioner is to file a
recall/modification application in the said
writ petition or file a special appeal against
the order passed therein.

10. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have carefully scanned the records of
the present writ petition as well as the
copies of the judgment and orders which
have been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

11. This Court finds that except for
relying on the final judgments and interim
orders of the Division Benches and Single
Benches, learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to produce any provisions of law,
rules, regulations etc. on the basis of which
this Court may direct the respondentauthority to constitute a medical board for
re-medical examination of the petitioner for
a third term. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not produced any document,
material or evidence, from which it is
established that the medical examinations
of the petitioner conducted by the Medical
Board and the Appellate Medical Board are
incorrect. This Court is also of the opinion
that on the basis of a report issued by a
Private Doctor or Doctor of a Government
Hospital, which has not been authorized by
the Recruitment Board, the opinion given
by the Medical Board and the Appellate
Medical Board, being an Expert Body,
cannot be annulled and the same are
entitled to be given due weight and
credence.

12. The similar opinion, as expressed
by this Court herein above, has already
been dealt with by a learned Single Judge
of this Court in the case of Diwakar
Paswan Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others
reported in 2021 (1) ADJ 454, wherein
the learned Single Judge has opined as
follows:

"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.

A similar view has been taken in
recent judgments of this Court in Vivek
Kumar v. State of U.P.1 and Md. Arshad
Khan v. State of U.P.2 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
5 All. Purushottam Narayan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907
relevant recruitment rules and taking any
other view may have the effect of derailing
the recruitment process.

Dealing
with
an
identical
challenge this Court in Prakash Singh Vs.
State of U.P.3 held:

"The petitioner essentially calls
upon the Court to rule on and evaluate the
correctness of the reports submitted by
experts in their fields. These submissions
and reliefs have evidently been sought and
addressed without bearing in mind the
contours of the writ jurisdiction. The
opinion of a Medical Board is the outcome
of an evaluation by experts in the subject.
Except in exceptional situations such as
where a finding of unfitness is returned in
violation or disregard of the standards
prescribed or on grounds which may call
upon this Court to consider the correctness
of the opinion on a legal plain, it would be
wholly inappropriate for this Court to
either interfere with the same or substitute
its own opinion with respect to the medical
fitness of a particular candidate. Treading
this path may also cause serious prejudice
and jeopardise the recruitment process
itself. The Court is constrained to enter this
note of caution conscious of its own
limitations with respect to adjudging the
medical fitness or otherwise of a particular
candidate. In the ultimate analysis, it would
be pertinent to emphasise that such
requests must be entertained with due care
and circumspection."

The Delhi High Court in a
recent decision handed down in the
matter of Km Priyanka Vs. Union of
India4 cautioned against interfering with
the opinion formed by medical boards
constituted for selection of members of
the armed forces on the strength of
certificates issued by private or civilian
doctors in the following terms: -

"8.
We
have
on
several
occasions observed that the standard of
physical fitness for the Armed Forces and
the Police Forces is more stringent than
for civilian employment. We have in Priti
Yadav Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC
Online Del 951;Jonu Tiwari VS. Union of
India 2020 SCC Online Del 855; Nishant
Kumar Vs. Union of India SCC Online
Del 808; and Shravan Kumar Rai Vs.
Union of India 2020 SCC Online Del 924
held that once no mala fides are
attributed and the doctors of the Forces
who are well aware of the demands of
duties of the Forces in the terrain in
which
the
recruited
personnel
are
required to work, have formed an opinion
that the candidate is not medically fit for
recruitment, opinion of private or other
government doctors to the contrary
cannot be accepted inasmuch as the
recruited personnel are required to work
for the Forces and not for the private
doctors or the government hospitals and
which medical professionals are unaware
of the demands of the duties of the
Forces."

Although learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon certain
interim orders passed by learned Judges of
the Court and which stand appended as
Annexure 7 to the writ petition, the Court
notes that none of those interim orders
notice or deal with the principles as
elucidated by the Division Bench in Rahul
or the decisions in Manish Kumar and
Prakash Singh noticed above.

It becomes pertinent to note that
the opinions formed by the Medical and
Review Boards have not been assailed by
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner on the ground of mala fides.
A review of those decisions is sought
solely on the basis of a contrary opinion
rendered by a doctor of a government
hospital. Permitting a reopening of a
medical examination conducted by the
respondents solely on that basis would set
a dangerous precedent especially when the
Court by virtue of its inherent limitations
would be wholly unequipped to undertake
a comparative analysis or evaluation of
competing medical opinions. Medical
fitness
is
a
subject
best
left
for
determination by experts and should not
be lightly interfered with unless it be
shown to be contrary to the standards
prescribed or otherwise be liable to be
assailed on other judicially manageable
parameters.

Quite apart from the consistent
view taken by Courts on this question
regard must also be had to the fact that
the medical examination in the present
case was undertaken in accordance with
the provisions made in the statutory rules.
Those Rules confer finality upon the
opinions formed by the Medical Boards
subject to an appeal against the same
before a Review Medical Board. Those
Rules do not envisage or contemplate a
challenge to those reports based upon
reports and opinions privately obtained by
candidates. Permitting such a course of
action would not only be contrary to the
Rules which apply and bind the candidate
but also result in derailing the recruitment
process itself"

(Emphasis added)

13. This Court, therefore, is in
respectful agreement with the decision
taken by the learned Single Judge in the
case of Diwkar Paswan (Supra) and finds
no good ground to entertain the present writ
petition.

14. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of U.P. and others Vs.
Bhanu Pratap Rajput, reported in 2021
(2) ADJ 451, has observed as follows:

"16. The medical examination by
the Medical Board consisting of medical
experts under Rule 15(g) cannot be said to
be inferior to the physical standard test
conducted by a team of non-experts.
Therefore, we find that the finding recorded
by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment that the assessment of
physical
standard
by
the
committee
constituted under Appendix-2 to the Rules,
2015 is liable to be preferred over the
determination made by the Medical Board
in terms of the Appendix-3, is not
sustainable. Opinion of a committee of
non-experts under Rule 15(d) for physical
test of a candidate cannot override the
opinion of the team of experts, i.e.
Medical Board under Rule 15(g) of the
Rules."

15. This Court also agrees with the
observations made by the Division Bench
of this Court in the aforesaid case.

16. So far as the two final judgments
of the Division Benches of this Court as
well as two final judgments of Single
Benches in the cases of Devesh Shahi,
Sandeep Kumar, State of U.P. and Ashad
Varsee (Supras), which have heavily been
relied upon the by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is concerned, this Court finds
that the same are not applicable in the facts
o the present case, as the candidates of the
aforesaid cases have not been non-suited on
the ground of deficiency of Varicose Veins.
Therefore,
the
same
are
clearly
5 All. Nidhi Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
909
distinguishable from the facts of the present
case.

17. The interim orders in the case of
Vikram Singh and Ram Kumar (Supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are not binding upon this Court.

18. In the case of Vishnu Traders
Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1995
Suppl (1) SCC 461, the Apex Court has
observed as under:-

"In the matters of interlocutory
orders, principle of binding precedent
cannot be said to apply. However, the need
for consistency approach and uniformity in
the
exercise
of
judicial
discretion
respecting
similar
causes
and
the
desirability to eliminate occasions for
grievance
of
discriminatory
treatment
requires that all similar matters should
receive similar treatment except where
factual differences require a different
treatment so that there is an assurance of
consistency, uniformity, predictability and
certainty of judicial approach."

19. Similar view has been taken by
this Court in Smt. Rampati Jaiswal Vs.
State of U.P., reported in AIR 1997 All.
170.

20. Lastly, this Court finds substance
in the submission made by the learned
Standing Counsel that this second writ
petition filed for nearly the same relief
cannot be entertained by this Court. For
same relief, second writ petition is not
maintainable. The proper remedy available
to the petitioner was to file a recall
application in his earlier writ petition
referred to above or to file a Special Appeal
against the judgment and order passed in
the said writ petition.

21. The present writ petition is devoid
of merits, and, accordingly, dismissed.

22. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A909
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 3583 of 2022

Nidhi Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nripendra Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Prasanna
Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Asim Mukherjee (S.C.)

A. Service Law - Suspension Order - The
Court has noticed that prima facie the petitioner
has been found guilty of a forged Baramadagi
on which her signatures have been appended,
which is an admitted position and also for
criminal conspiracy by preparing forged and
wrong documents showing an alive person
dead. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the order of suspension.
(Para 12)

B. Practice & Procedure - quashing of
charge sheet - The law on this point is that
the Courts should not stay/quash the
disciplinary proceedings nor they should
go into the correctness or otherwise the
charges leveled in the charge-sheet and
the
departmental
inquiry
should
be
allowed to continue uninterrupted to
come to its natural conclusion. The
tribunal or the Court cannot take over the