# Shivansh Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 964
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1076 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivansh-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-51368
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Recruitment - Declaring
medically unfit - 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, would be
extremely limited. 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 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. (Para
11, 12)
12 All. Shivansh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
965
In the present case, where recruitment process
has been carried out as per the prescribed
procedure whereunder the medical fitness of
candidates
has
been
tested
by
a
duly
constituted Medical Board, the report of the
Medical Board is not to be normally interfered
with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim
sought to be set up by the appellant- petitioner
on the basis of some subsequent report
procured
by
him
from
another
medical
practitioner. It is no where the case of the
petitioner that the decision taken by the Medical
Board was arbitrary or not in accordance with
the procedure prescribed for the recruitment in
question. (Para 13, 14)

B. A claim sought to be set up on the
basis of a subsequent medical report
produced by the candidate would not
have
the
effect
of
overriding
or
setting at naught the expert opinion
of the Medical Board set up as per
procedure in a recruitment process.
(Para 15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preferential list submitted by him, no
mistake can be said to have been
committed by the concerned authority in
giving him appointment to a college
specified at serial no. 28 of the preferential
list submitted by the petitioner.

28. As regards the alternative relief
which was sought by the petitioner at the
stage of the present special appeal, for
being granted placement at any of the
colleges which had been specified at serial
nos. 1 to 27 of the preferential list, in view
of the factual position borne out from the
instructions placed by the learned counsel
for the State-respondents that no vacancy
exist at any of the said institutions, no
direction can be issued in favour of the
petitioner in this respect also.

29. We may also take note of the
finding given by the learned Single Judge
in the judgment under appeal that nothing
has been placed on record to indicate that
any person standing lower in the merit has
been given appointment in any of the
colleges mentioned in the preferential list
of the petitioner above serial no. 28 where
the
petitioner
has
been
offered
appointment.
The
conclusion
drawn
thereafter that no illegality had been
committed in offering appointment to the
petitioner at a college specified at serial no.
28 of the preferential list submitted by the
petitioner
himself,
in
our
opinion,
therefore, cannot be faulted with.

30. Learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to point out any
material error or illegality in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, which
may persuade us to take a different view in
the matter.

31. The appeal lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 964
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1076 of 2024

Shivansh Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amal Darsingh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I, Prem Narayan Rai

A. Service Law - Recruitment - Declaring
medically unfit - 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, would be
extremely limited. 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 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. (Para
11, 12)
12 All. Shivansh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
965
In the present case, where recruitment process
has been carried out as per the prescribed
procedure whereunder the medical fitness of
candidates
has
been
tested
by
a
duly
constituted Medical Board, the report of the
Medical Board is not to be normally interfered
with, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim
sought to be set up by the appellant- petitioner
on the basis of some subsequent report
procured
by
him
from
another
medical
practitioner. It is no where the case of the
petitioner that the decision taken by the Medical
Board was arbitrary or not in accordance with
the procedure prescribed for the recruitment in
question. (Para 13, 14)

B. A claim sought to be set up on the
basis of a subsequent medical report
produced by the candidate would not
have
the
effect
of
overriding
or
setting at naught the expert opinion
of the Medical Board set up as per
procedure in a recruitment process.
(Para 15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Md. Arshad Khan General (Male) Category,
(Roll
Bo.00186474),
Registration
No.10209488956 Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2020) 8
ADJ 235 (Para 11)

2. Vivek Kumar S/o Mool Chandra Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., (2020) 140 ALR 330 (Para 12)

Present
special
appeal
challenges
judgment and order dated 12.11.2024,
passed in Writ-A No. 15441 of 2024,
whereby the writ petition has been
dismissed.

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

1. Heard Sri Amal Darsingh, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Prem
Narayan Rai, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.1 to 3.
2. The instant special appeal is
directed against the judgment and order
dated
12.11.2024
passed
in
Writ-A
No.15441 of 2024, whereby the writ
petition has been dismissed.

3. The writ petition had been filed
by the petitioner-appellant, seeking a
direction to the concerned respondentauthority to constitute a Medical Board for
the medical examination of the petitioner,
who has been declared unfit by the
respondent-authority during the recruitment
of LUC_UTT_VAR_AVGD_2024_121906.

4. The brief facts of the present
case are that the petitioner-appellant had
applied for the post of Agni Veer (General
Duty) in the Indian Army and after being
declared successful in the preliminary
written examination as well as physical
test, he was called for medical test at
Varanasi in which, he was declared unfit, as
he
is
suffering
from
disability
of
Onychomycosis
Specified
right
index
finger. Thereafter, the petitioner was
referred to the Military Hospital, Prayagraj
for review in which, he was also declared
unfit. Then, the petitioner approached
respondent
no.4,
who
is
Head
of
Department and Assistant Professor, PG
Department of Dermatology, Venereology
& Laprosy, Moti Lal Nehru Medical
College, Prayagraj for his medical test.
According to the petitioner, respondent
no.4 issued a certificate to him, opining that
Onychomycosis is a non-communicable
disease and is curable.

5. The principal ground on which
the petitioner-appellant had approached the
writ court, seeking constitution of a
medical board, was based on a medical
examination report dated 10.09.2024 given
by respondent no.4.
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. In order to verify the status of
the report, a personal affidavit of the said
respondent no.4 was called for by learned
Single Judge and the said respondent also
appeared personally before the Court on
12.11.2024.

7. On the same date, instructions
were
produced
by
counsel
for
the
respondent-authorities, indicating therein
that the petitioner-appellant had been
medically examined by the doctors of the
Army and he was found unfit for the
disability of 'Onychomycosis Specified
right index finger'. Thereafter, petitioner
was reviewed by Senior Medical Officer
(SRMO)
wherein
the
disability
of
'Onychomycosis' was confirmed by the
SRMO. On being found 'Unfit' by two
separate doctors (MO & SRMO), the
petitioner was further referred to Military
Hospital, Prayagraj for medical review test
by a specialist doctor for the said disability.
The specialist doctor at Military Hospital,
Prayagraj also opined and declared the
petitioner as unfit for 'Onychomycosis
Specified right index finger'.

8. The affidavit filed by respondent
no.4 and the instructions produced by
counsel for the respondent-authorities were
examined by learned Single Judge and
based
on
the
aforesaid,
following
observations were made:

"4. In the affidavit, it is
stated by respondent no. 4 that he
has not conducted the medical
examination
of
the
petitioner
regarding the recommendation of
his appointment in any provision of
law and only attended the petitioner
in general O.P.D. and given his
opinion inadvertently without any
wilful intention. He has also
tendered his unconditional apology,
which is accepted.
5. This writ petition has
been filed for the following relief:-
" (i) Issue a writ order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus directing the respondent
no. 2 to constitute the medical
board for the medical of the
petitioner, who has been declared
unfit by the respondent no.3 during
the recruitment of the LUC-UTTVAR-AVGD-2024-121906."
6. The basis of filing the
present petition is a report dated
10.09.2024 given by respondent
no.4. Respondent no.4 has admitted
this fact in his affidavit that he has
not
conducted
the
medical
examination
of
the
petitioner
regarding the recommendation of
his appointment in any provision of
law and only attained the petitioner
in general O.P.D. and given his
opinion inadvertently without any
wilful intention. He has also
tendered his unconditional apology
which is accepted by the Court.
7. As per the instruction
dated
26th
October,
2024,
petitioner was medically examined
by the doctors of the Army and he
was found unfit for the disability of
"Onychomycosis Specified right
index finger". Thereafter, petitioner
was reviewed by Senior Medical
Officer
(SRMO)
wherein
the
disability of "Onychomycosis" was
confirmed by the SRMO. On being
found "Unfit" by two separate
doctors (MO & SRMO), the
petitioner was further referred to
Military Hospital, Prayagraj for
medical Review test by a specialist
doctor for the said disability. The
12 All. Shivansh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
967
specialist
doctor
at
Military
Hospital, Prayagraj also opined and
declared the petitioner as unfit for
"Onychomycosis Specified right
index finger".
8.Once the petitioner was
found medically unfit by the
Medical Officer of the Army and
the same was also confirmed by the
Senior Medical Officer. Specialist
doctor
at
Military
Hospital,
Prayagraj also opined and declared
him unfit for "Onychomycosis
Specified right index finger". This
Court is also of the view that no
interference is required to the
expert opinion given by the doctors
and no fresh medical board is
required for medical examination
of the petitioner in light of facts
mentioned here."

9. It is not disputed that the
petitioner-appellant had been declared
medically unfit by the Medical Board
constituted for the purpose of recruitment
and thereafter, the petitioner has sought a
direction for constitution of fresh medical
board on the basis of medical examination
report submitted by respondent no.4
subsequently, who is stated to have
examined the petitioner.

10. Learned Single Judge has
taken note of the instructions produced
by
counsel
for
the
respondentauthorities, which demonstrated that the
petitioner had been medically examined
by the medical board and was found
unfit, and thereafter, in a review, the
disability was confirmed and on a
further reference, the specialist doctor at
the Military Hospital also opined that the
petitioner was unfit.

11. The law with regard to the
scope of interference in matters relating to
the assessment of fitness by the medical
board constituted for the purpose of
recruitment under the relevant statutory
rules, in exercise of powers under writ
jurisdiction, is fairly well settled. In this
regard, we may place reliance upon the
observations made in Md. Arshad Khan
General
(Male)
Category,
(Roll
No.00186474),
Registration
No.10209488956 vs. State of UP and
others1, wherein it was observed as
follows:

"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
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

12. A similar view had also been
taken in another judgment of this Court in
Vivek Kumar S/o Mool Chandra vs.
State of UP & 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.

13. In the present case, where
recruitment process has been carried out
as
per
the
prescribed
procedure
whereunder
the
medical
fitness
of
candidates has been tested by a duly
constituted Medical Board, the report of
the Medical Board is not to be normally
interfered with, and that too, solely on the
basis of a claim sought to be set up by the
appellant-petitioner on the basis of some
subsequent report procured by him from
another medical practitioner.

14. It is no where the case of the
petitioner that the decision taken by the
Medical Board was arbitrary or not in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
for the recruitment in question.
15. We are of the view that a claim
sought to be set up on the basis of a
subsequent medical report produced by the
candidate would not have the effect of
overriding or setting at naught the expert
opinion of the Medical Board set up as per
procedure in a recruitment process.

16. The impugned judgment
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A
No.15441 of 2024 is based on appreciation
of the facts and the material on record, and
after recording cogent reasons. We do not
see any reason to take a different view.

17. The appeal lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 968
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 7793 of 2024

Kajal Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Narendra Singh Chahar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Standing Counsel for the State

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Jurisdiction - Condonation
of delay - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 - As
per the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of
1974, apart from the law about the
relevant and material facts, on the basis of
which, the power to condone a delay
beyond five years ought be exercised,