# State Of U.P. & Ors v. Rahul

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 632
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-03
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-rahul-43495
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 September 2015.
The Single Judge directed issuance of an appointment order to the respondent after constituting a
court-appointed medical board.
Division Bench considered legality of the Single Judge's intervention in the recruitment process.
Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed.

Procedure

Respondent applied for recruitment to the Civil Police/PAC under advertisement dated 14 May 2013.
Underwent District Medical Board examination → declared medically unfit (flat foot).
Filed appeal before Review Medical Board → again declared unfit.
Filed representation on 08 April 2015; no allegation of corruption made at this stage.
Filed writ petition raising new allegations of demand of illegal gratification and claimed the medical
report was "fake."
Single Judge ordered fresh medical examination by a three-member board of Motilal Nehru Medical
College.
Based on its report, the Single Judge directed appointment.
State challenged the order through special appeal.

Sections

No penal sections invoked.
The matter concerns service recruitment, governed by statutory rules (Rule 13, U.P. (Civil Police)
Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2008).

Case Law Cited
3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Rahul
633
Union of India v. Parul Punia - caution against substituting official medical boards with reports
procured privately; identity verification concerns emphasized.
State of U.P. v. Deepak Kumar - private medical opinions cannot override findings of statutory medical
boards; judicial interference limited.
 Statutory Provision: Rule 13, U.P. (Civil Police) Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2008.

Head Note -

Service Law - Recruitment - Medical Fitness: Candidate must be examined by the Medical
Board constituted under Rule 13. Findings of statutory Boards cannot be displaced by court-appointed
or private medical opinions except in exceptional cases of perversity.
Judicial Review - Limits: Courts must exercise restraint in interfering with expert determinations in
recruitment processes; cannot supplant statutory procedures.
Allegations of Corruption - Evidentiary Weakness: Allegation of illegal gratification raised
belatedly; absence of mention in initial representation weakens credibility.

Facts

Respondent was a candidate for recruitment as Constable in U.P. Police.
District Medical Board declared him medically unfit due to flat foot (01.04.2015
Review Medical Board confirmed unfitness.
Respondent claimed in writ petition that no proper medical examination occurred and that bribery was
demanded; this contradicted his own appeal documents acknowledging medical testing.
Single Judge ordered a fresh medical examination through a court-constituted board.
• Court-appointed board found Grade-1 flat foot, though bio-mechanical functions were intact.
Single Judge declared respondent medically fit and directed appointme

## Text

632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. - 70 Of 2016

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rahul ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shri Piyush Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Shri Vinod Kumar Singh

Proceedings

Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 September 2015.
The Single Judge directed issuance of an appointment order to the respondent after constituting a
court-appointed medical board.
Division Bench considered legality of the Single Judge's intervention in the recruitment process.
Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed.

Procedure

Respondent applied for recruitment to the Civil Police/PAC under advertisement dated 14 May 2013.
Underwent District Medical Board examination → declared medically unfit (flat foot).
Filed appeal before Review Medical Board → again declared unfit.
Filed representation on 08 April 2015; no allegation of corruption made at this stage.
Filed writ petition raising new allegations of demand of illegal gratification and claimed the medical
report was "fake."
Single Judge ordered fresh medical examination by a three-member board of Motilal Nehru Medical
College.
Based on its report, the Single Judge directed appointment.
State challenged the order through special appeal.

Sections

No penal sections invoked.
The matter concerns service recruitment, governed by statutory rules (Rule 13, U.P. (Civil Police)
Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2008).

Case Law Cited
3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Rahul
633
Union of India v. Parul Punia - caution against substituting official medical boards with reports
procured privately; identity verification concerns emphasized.
State of U.P. v. Deepak Kumar - private medical opinions cannot override findings of statutory medical
boards; judicial interference limited.
 Statutory Provision: Rule 13, U.P. (Civil Police) Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2008.

Head Note -

Service Law - Recruitment - Medical Fitness: Candidate must be examined by the Medical
Board constituted under Rule 13. Findings of statutory Boards cannot be displaced by court-appointed
or private medical opinions except in exceptional cases of perversity.
Judicial Review - Limits: Courts must exercise restraint in interfering with expert determinations in
recruitment processes; cannot supplant statutory procedures.
Allegations of Corruption - Evidentiary Weakness: Allegation of illegal gratification raised
belatedly; absence of mention in initial representation weakens credibility.

Facts

Respondent was a candidate for recruitment as Constable in U.P. Police.
District Medical Board declared him medically unfit due to flat foot (01.04.2015
Review Medical Board confirmed unfitness.
Respondent claimed in writ petition that no proper medical examination occurred and that bribery was
demanded; this contradicted his own appeal documents acknowledging medical testing.
Single Judge ordered a fresh medical examination through a court-constituted board.
• Court-appointed board found Grade-1 flat foot, though bio-mechanical functions were intact.
Single Judge declared respondent medically fit and directed appointment.
State appealed.

Contentions

Appellant (State of U.P.)
Rule 13 mandates medical examination only through designated Boards.
Respondent was examined twice-both times found unfit; no ground to override statutory procedure.
No allegation of illegal gratification in respondent's initial representation; allegations inserted belatedly
in writ petition.
Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by constituting an alternate medical board without finding
perversity in existing findings.
Respondent

Claimed no real medical examination occurred; official report was "fake."
Alleged demand of bribe before medical board.
Court-appointed board found him fit as per required parameters; thus Single Judge's order should
stand.

Analysis

Statutory Framework Controls the Process: Rule 13 mandates medical examination by officially
constituted Boards; statutory force applies.
Two-Tier Medical Examination Completed: Respondent underwent initial and review medical
examinations; appeal documents acknowledge the examinations.
Belated Allegations Undermine Credibility: Illegal gratification allegation absent from 08.04.2015
representation; only in writ petition; verification not based on personal knowledge.
634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judicial Overreach in Ordering Fresh Medical Examination: Single Judge supplanted statutory
process without establishing perversity, bias, or procedural flaw.
Risk to Recruitment Integrity: Allowing candidates to rely on external opinions or court-ordered
re-examinations undermines recruitment and raises identity verification issues.
Expert Determinations Demand Deference: Medical fitness evaluations are expert domain; courts
cannot substitute unless clear illegality, mala fides, or procedural irregularity is shown.
Report of Court-Appointed Board Does Not Justify Intervention: Even fresh board found
Grade-1 flat foot, supporting statutory boards.
Principles of Judicial Review: Article 226 powers are wide but must be exercised with caution;
courts cannot intervene solely because a different medical view exists.
Single Judge's Order Contrary to Precedents: Earlier Division Bench rulings (Parul Punia, Deepak
Kumar) restrict judicial interference in recruitment medical determinations.
Conclusion: Single Judge's judgment erred by overriding statutory medical evaluation without
foundation. Division Bench correctly allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.

C.M. (Delay Condonation) Application

• Delay of 98 days in filing the Special Appeal condoned.

• Application disposed accordingly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr D Y Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
dated 15 September 2015. The respondent applied in pursuance of an advertisement that was
issued on 14 May 2013 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board
setting in motion a selection process for appointment of constables in the civil police and
PAC among other posts. The selection process envisaged four stages namely: (i) Physical
Standard Test; (ii) Physical Efficiency Test; (iii) Written Test; and (iv) a Medical Test. The
respondent was invalidated on the ground of medical unfitness in the medical test which
resulted in the filing of writ proceedings. In the writ petition, the respondent averred that he
had been wrongly declared failed by the medical board whereas he had got himself
examined by a doctor of VMMC and Safdarjang Hospital where he was found to be fit.

2. The learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 4 August 2015 directed the
medical examination of the respondent upon appearing before the Principal of the Motilal
Nehru Medical College who was to constitute a three-Member team for submitting a report.
The report was received on 10 September 2015. Based on the report of the expert committee
appointed by the Court, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 15 September
2015 by directing that the respondent should be treated as medically fit and a consequential
order of appointment should be issued within a period of six weeks.

3. The State is in appeal.

4. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the State is that there was no
warrant or justification for the learned Single Judge to have issued an interim order for
medical examination of the respondent by a team of Doctors to be constituted in the Motilal
Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. In this regard, reliance was placed on the provisions
3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Rahul
635
contained in Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable
Service Rules, 20081 which provides for the appearance before a medical Board by the
candidate before approval for appointment. In the present case, it was submitted that the
respondent appeared both before the medical Board constituted by the recruitment Board
and when he was not satisfied with the outcome of the medical test filed an appeal before
the appellate Board. The review medical examination also resulted in a finding of unfitness.
Hence, it was submitted that there was no warrant or justification for the learned Single
Judge to direct a medical examination by a separate medical Board outside the recruitment
process unless in an exceptional case the Court were to come to the conclusion that the
Board which had been appointed by the competent authorities had rendered a finding which
was perverse. Finally, it was urged that in the present case, when the respondent submitted a
representation on 8 April 2015, no allegation of a demand of illegal gratification was made
and it was only in the writ petition that a ground was sought to be inserted by making an
allegation which had not been levelled at the first available opportunity.

5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, it was initially urged by Counsel that,
as matter of fact, no medical examination was carried out of the respondent and the medical
report which has been produced on the record is a 'fake' medical report. Hence, it was urged
that there was ample justification for the learned Single Judge to direct that a fresh medical
team be constituted by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College. The respondent
had been duly examined and had been found to fulfill the medical parameters and not to be
suffering from a flat foot. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the order of the
learned Single Judge holding that the respondent is medically fit does not call for
interference in the special appeal

6. Now, at the outset, it would be necessary to advert to Rule 13 of the Rules. Rules 13
reads as follows:

"Physical Fitness

13. No candidate shall be appointed to a post in the service unless he is in good
mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the
efficient performance of his duties. Before a candidate is finally approved for appointment,
he shall be required to pass an examination by Medical Board.

NOTE:- The Medical Board shall examine the candidate for any physical
standards prescribed for height, chest and weight measurement as the case may be and
deficiencies such as Knock Knee, bow-legs flat feet, varicose veins, distant and near vision,
colour blindness, hearing test comprising of Rinne' test, Webber's test and tests for vertigo
speech defects etc as any be notified from time to time by the State Government."

7. These rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 46 (2) and
Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 and have statutory force and effect. The Rules specifically
provide for the examination of a candidate by a medical Board before being finally approved
for appointment and specify the parameters which are to be fulfilled for the purposes of a
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
medical examination. The record before the Court indicates that the District Medical Board
found the respondent to be medically unfit on 1 April 2015 on the ground that he suffered
from a flat foot. The respondent was aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature. Hence, he
filed an appeal on 1 April 2015 specifically referring to the ground of medical unfitness
found by the District Board and sought a review before the Divisional Medical Board. We
must note from the appeal which has been filed by the respondent (and which forms a part
of Annexure-5 to the writ petition) that the contention of the respondent before this Court in
special appeal to the effect that there was no medical examination in the first place is
manifestly misconceived. There was a medical examination in which the respondent was
found to be medically unfit and it is on that basis the respondent sought a review Medical
Board on 1 April 2015. In the review medical Board also the respondent was found to suffer
from a flat foot and was found unfit for the said reason. Against this determination, the
respondent filed a representation on 8 April 2015. Significantly, the complaint which was
filed before the Director General does not contain any reference to a demand for illegal
gratification. This issue was not raised at the first available opportunity and was raised only
in the writ petition. The respondent claimed that a demand for illegal gratification had been
made from him when he appeared before the Regional Medical Board at Kanpur on 4 April
2015. This averment in paragraph 14, as the verification of the writ petition would indicate,
is made on the basis of a perusal of records and not on the basis of the personal knowledge
of the respondent. This coupled with the fact that in the representation of the respondent
dated 8 April 2015, he made no reference to any illegal demand of gratification would be
sufficient to hold that this averment is an effort in the writ petition to somehow sustain a
ground of challenge.

8. This Court in previous decisions has emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of
the recruitment process and of the care and circumspection which has to be exercised before
the findings of an expert medical Board constituted by the authorities are interfered with in
writ proceedings. Undoubtedly, the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution are wide enough to issue such a direction in an appropriate case. However, such
directions cannot be issued merely on the basis of a request made in that behalf before the
Court.

9. In a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India through Ministry of Railways
vs. Parul Punia2, this Court has emphasized the need for caution when candidates seek to
question the correctness of the findings of a medical Board constituted under the recruitment
process adopted by the authorities of the State, on the basis of a report obtained by the
candidates. The Division Bench observed as follows:

"...In a number of such cases, candidates who have been invalidated on medical
grounds produce expert opinions of their own to cast doubt on the credibility of the official
medical report constituted by the recruiting body. In such cases, the Court may not have any
means of verifying the actual identity of the person who was examined in the course of the
medical examination by the Doctor whose report is relied upon by the candidate. Hence,
even though the authority whose medical report was produced by the candidate may be an
expert, the basic issue as to whether the identity of the candidate who was examined,
3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Rahul
637
matches the identity of the person who has applied for the post is a serious issue which
cannot be ignored..."

Dealing with the parameters of the writ jurisdiction in such cases, the Division
Bench observed thus:

"...Undoubtedly, in a suitable case, the powers of the Court under Article 226 are
wide enough to comprehend the issuance of appropriate directions but such powers have to
be wielded with caution and circumspection. Matters relating to the medical evaluation of
candidates in the recruitment process involve expert determination. The Court should be
cautious in supplanting the process adopted by the recruiting agency and substituting it by a
Court mandated medical evaluation. In the present case the proper course would have been
to permit an evaluation of the medical fitness of the respondent by a review medical board
provided by the appellants. Otherwise, the recruitment process can be derailed if such
requests of candidates who are not found to be medically fit for reassessment on the basis of
procedures other than those which are envisaged by the recruiting authority are allowed.
This would ordinarily be impermissible."

10. In the present case, we find absolutely no reasonable basis for the respondent to
have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 for constituting a separate medical Board
under the authority of the Principal of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. In the
interim order of the learned Single Judge, there was no safeguard to the effect that the
medical examination would take place in the presence of a representative of the State to at
least ensure that the issue of identity did not arise. But that apart, more fundamentally, the
objection to the entire procedure which has been followed is that without any reasonable
basis or justification, the recruitment process and the procedures which have been laid down
have been supplanted under a judicial direction. This, in our view, would be impermissible.

11. We may also note that in an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
State of U.P. vs. Deepak Kumar3 it observed as follows:

"Once such is the factual situation that there is self contained procedure, that has
been provided for, being declared medically fit and there is a provision of review also in
case an incumbent is declared medically unfit and here on two occasions respondent
petitioner has failed to prove himself to be medically fit, then based on the report of a
private medical practitioner no such mandatory directives could have been issued. That is
totally outside the scope of scheme that has been provided for, in view of this, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be subscribed by us. Candidate concerned, at no
point of time, has imputed any motive to members of Medical Board that they have wrongly
for extraneous consideration prepared wrong report."

12. We may also note that in the report of the Motilal Nehru Medical College,
Allahabad which has been referred to in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it
has been found that "there is mild collapse of medial arch leading to Grade-1 Flat foot".
However, on a medical examination, the bio-mechanical function of foot was found to be
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intact. The report advised that the case 'can be considered fit as per the medical parameters
set by a particular service for which the candidate opts for'. Thus even the report of the
independent Board did not support the case of the respondent.

13. For the reasons which we have indicated, we are of the view that the special appeal
would have to be allowed. The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15 September 2015 is set aside. The writ petition
filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the record of
the writ petition.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal Defective NO. 159 OF 2016

State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Nath Mishra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellants:-
Piyush Shukla

Counsel for Respondents:-
Subhash Singh Yadav

Proceedings
This special appeal has arisen from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 24
March 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents seeking payment of back wages for
the period from 14 October 1977 to 1 June 2000 was allowed. The Division Bench is called upon to
examine whether the respondents were legally entitled to back wages in light of the prior
reinstatement orders, the statutory framework governing service matters, and binding precedents of
this Court and the Supreme Court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel on both
sides, the appeal is allowed in part, and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh
disposal in accordance with law and precedents.

Procedure
The factual background reveals that the respondents, who were serving as Constables in the
Provincial Armed Constabulary, were terminated on 14 October 1977 on the alleged ground of
participation in a revolt that had occurred in 1973. The respondents filed claim petitions before the
Public Services Tribunal which were dismissed on 19 January 1998. Subsequent to a Division Bench
judgment in 2000, the termination orders and the Tribunal's dismissal were quashed, and the
respondents were reinstated with retrospective effect. Thereafter, the respondents filed