# Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-11
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 214 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-yadav-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-51705
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Service Law - Recruitment - Central Police
Organization (SSB) - Medical Examination
Guidelines
(20.05.2015,
modified
21.05.2021) - Clause 25 - Small Hydrocele
- Appellants rejected for Constable Driver
post due to small hydrocele; review
medical examination upheld rejection.
Clause 25 allows selection for small
hydrocele only if operated prior to medical
examination with no bad scar left, not
post-rejection surgery. No right exists for
candidates to undergo surgery after being
found medically unfit and seek fresh
examination. Judicial review limited to
procedural flaws or arbitrariness; none
found. Single Judge's dismissal of writ
petition (Writ-A No. 21108 of 2023)
upheld; no violation of guidelines. (Paras
6-8)

Special Appeal Dismissed.
4 All. Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
145

## Text

144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ourselves unable to accord approval to the
findings returned by the Hon'ble Single
Judge while deciding the Writ- A No.8019
of 2012 and Writ- A No.18146 of 2012,
and are of the considered opinion that the
impugned orders dated 22.12.2023 passed
by the learned Writ Court are liable to be
set aside and are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned dismissal order
dated 25.09.2004 and the consequential
orders passed by the Appellate as well as
the Revisional Authorities are hereby
quashed. Consequently, the appellants are
entitled to be reinstated in service. Since
the order impugned has been set aside
primarily on the ground that holding of
disciplinary enquiry could not have been
dispensed with, in the facts of the present
case, it would be open for the employer to
hold
fresh
departmental
enquiry
in
accordance with the CISF Rules, 2001. In
case if the respondent authorities choose to
hold the regular enquiry in the matter, in
accordance with the prescribed rules, then
in that event, the payment of back wages
shall abide by the result of such enquiry.

38. This direction is being issued
keeping in view the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Managing Director,
ECIL, Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar,
reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727. It would be
open for the employer to place the
appellants
under
suspension
for
the
purposes of holding of enquiry. The
appellants would, however, be entitled to
payment of subsistence allowance during
the period of enquiry which would be
concluded within a period of four months.
The appellants undertake to extend full
cooperation in holding of such enquiry.
However, in the event the employer is not
desirous of holding disciplinary enquiry in
terms of the above liberty the appellants
shall be reinstated in service alongwith
continuity and arrears of salary at the rate
of 25% in the facts of the present case.

39. Both the appeals are, accordingly,
disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. No
order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 144
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Special Appeal No. 214 of 2024

Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants
Sri Atul Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Pradeep Shankar Pandey

Service Law - Recruitment - Central Police
Organization (SSB) - Medical Examination
Guidelines
(20.05.2015,
modified
21.05.2021) - Clause 25 - Small Hydrocele
- Appellants rejected for Constable Driver
post due to small hydrocele; review
medical examination upheld rejection.
Clause 25 allows selection for small
hydrocele only if operated prior to medical
examination with no bad scar left, not
post-rejection surgery. No right exists for
candidates to undergo surgery after being
found medically unfit and seek fresh
examination. Judicial review limited to
procedural flaws or arbitrariness; none
found. Single Judge's dismissal of writ
petition (Writ-A No. 21108 of 2023)
upheld; no violation of guidelines. (Paras
6-8)

Special Appeal Dismissed.
4 All. Rajesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
145
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)

1. This special appeal arises out of an
order passed by learned Single Judge in
Writ-A No.21108 of 2023 whereby the
appellants' grievance in respect of their
candidature having been overlooked on
account of a medical ailment has been
rejected.

2. Learned Single Judge has noticed
the facts of the case as per which the
appellants applied for the post of Constable
Driver in the Central Police OrganizationSSB. They were found suffering from small
hydrocele. The Rules of recruitment
permitted conduct of review medical
examination, wherein also the appellants
were
non-suited.
Aggrieved
by
the
rejection
of
their
candidature,
the
appellants approached writ Court. Learned
Single Judge has observed that the
respondents fairly treated the appellants in
the matter of recruitment and the conduct
of medical examination as well as the
review medical examination was found in
accordance with the procedure laid down
for recruitment.

3. It is not in issue that the physical
examination of the candidate provisionally
selected for appointment in Central Police
Organization has to be undertaken in
accordance with the guidelines issued by
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India. Detailed guidelines were earlier
issued on 20.5.2015, which have been
partially modified on 21.5.2021. The
guidelines have been produced before us.
The manner of conduct of examination has
been specified in the guidelines. Clause 6
contains
various
physical
ailments/deformity on account of which the
candidature of a candidate could be
rejected. Clause 25 which deals with large
and small hydrocele reads as under:-

"25. Large hydrocele, even if
curable by operation. Small hydrocele (if
operated upon and no bad scar is left after
operaton may be accepted)."

4. With reference to the above clause,
learned counsel for the appellants submits
that in case of small hydrocele the
guidelines permits a candidate to be
selected even in a case where the candidate
is operated upon and no bad scar is left
after operation. With reference to the above
provisions, it is urged before us that the
respondents
ought
to have
given
a
reasonable opportunity to the appellant to
get him operated upon and thereafter the
candidature ought to have been considered
afresh. Learned counsel submits that the
purpose of holding a review medical test is
to allow opportunity to the candidate to get
such operation performed so that the
candidature is not discarded on a ground
which otherwise could be overlooked.

5. Submission in that regard is
opposed by Sri Pradeep Shankar Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondents.

6. We have considered the respective
submissions
raised
at
the
bar.
The
interpretation which is sought to be
suggested by the appellants does not appeal
to us. Clause 25 categorically provides that
in case of large hydrocele, even if it is
curable by operation, the candidate would
be rejected for selection. In the case of
small hydrocele the candidate could still be
selected even if it is found that he has been
operated upon and no bad scar is left after
operation.
The
clause,
in
our
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
understanding, would indicate that in the
eventuality where a candidate prior to his
medical
examination
by
the
board
undergoes operation, and no scar is left
after such procedure is performed, the
candidate can be selected. Clause 25 cannot
be construed as giving an opportunity to the
candidate after his rejection on medical
ground to avail the remedy of operation
and, thereafter claim a right of fresh
consideration by the medical board. In the
event such contention is accepted, every
candidate who is found suffering with
small hydrocele will be conceded a right to
get himself operated and thereafter appear
afresh, for medical examination. That does
not appear to be the intent of the guidelines.

7. The limited issue which has to be
examined by the medical board is as to
whether on the date of medical examination
the candidate was medically fit or unfit.
Whether the candidate was accorded
consideration in terms of the policy/rules
for medical examination would be the
issue. It is only the correctness of such
opinion by the medical board which can be
examined in the review medical board.
Judicial review of such administrative
action would not involve recognition of a
right in a candidate to get himself operated
upon, even after he has been validly found
unfit on a particular medical exigency so as
to get himself operated and thereafter apply
for fresh consideration of his candidature.
The scope of judicial review in such
matters is otherwise extremely limited and
unless it is shown that the department has
acted arbitrarily or has violated the
guidelines made for conduct of medical
examination, this Court would not be
justified in interfering in such matters.

8. In view of the discussions and
deliberations held above, we find that the
learned
Single
Judge
has
correctly
examined the issue and the appellant
cannot assert a right under the applicable
policy to avail the remedy of medical
procedure after he is declared medically
unfit and seek fresh medical examination.

9. The special appeal lacks merit and
is, consequently, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 146
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Special Appeal No. 245 of 2024

Vijay Prakash Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kedar Nath Mishra

Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees)
Rules, 1984 - Rule 21 - Termination of
Service - Class-IV employee in recognized
Junior High School terminated without
prior written approval of District Basic
Education
Officer
(BSA),
violating
mandatory Rule 21. Termination order
(10.04.2014) issued day after suspension
(09.04.2014)
without
departmental
enquiry, rendering it illegal. BSA's order
(31.03.2017)
rejecting
salary
claim
unsustainable due to admitted lack of
prior approval. Single Judge's direction
(18.01.2024)
for
BSA
to
decide
on