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

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 903
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-10
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vandana-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44285
- **Pages:** 24

## Text

_Characters 0–39,929 of 71,906. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39929 for what follows._

8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
903
(2016) 8 ILRA 903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J.

Writ A No.- 52546 Of 2015
&
Connected With Other Cases

Vandana ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Vijay Gautam, Anand Ji Mishra, Kaushal Pandey

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Police Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008 - Rule 15 - Appendix-5 -
Medical Examination - Rejection - Oral Communication - No Reasons Recorded -- Petitioners,
candidates for post of Constable, cleared Preliminary Examination, Physical Efficiency Test and Main Written
Examination but declared medically unfit by Medical Board and thereafter by Appellate Medical Board, without
any written or reasoned order, only oral intimation given -- Appendix-5(3)(d) to Rule 15 requiring appeal to
be filed on same day as examination -- Held: Recording of reasons is fundamental to fair administrative
action and natural justice, required even where statute is silent -- Absence of reasoned order renders
statutory right of appeal illusory and empty formality. (Para 1)

Constitution of India - Article 14 - Subordinate Legislation - Arbitrariness - Appendix-5(3)(d) to
Rule 15 - Validity -- Provision requiring candidate dissatisfied with medical examination to file appeal on
same day, without corresponding requirement of furnishing reasons for rejection -- Held: Subordinate
legislation, though entitled to some latitude, can be struck down where it offends Article 14 of the Constitution
-- Provision requiring appeal on same day without reasoned order is manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable,
rendering right of appeal illusory -- Struck down as unconstitutional to that extent. (Para 2)

Fairness of Medical Board - Allegations of Corruption - Effect on Selection Process -- Petitioners
alleged widespread corruption amongst doctors constituting District-level Medical Boards, supported by
newspaper reports and registration of first information report against certain doctors -- Held: Material on
record insufficient to vitiate entire selection process, but raises legitimate question as to credibility of
functioning of Medical Boards, particularly where petitioners had cleared physically gruelling Physical Efficiency
Test. (Para 3)

Constitution of Appellate Medical Board - Direction for Inclusion of Expert -- Rules and Appendix-5
silent regarding composition of Appellate Medical Board -- Held: Appellate Medical Board must be
reconstituted comprising doctor of the rank of Professor of a Medical College, to ensure transparency and
credibility of re-examination of candidates rejected on medical grounds. (Para 4)
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Judicial Review of Medical Opinion - Scope -- Held: Opinion of medical experts deserves respect and
not worship -- Courts are not precluded from examining record of Medical Board to determine whether
conclusion reached is legally sustainable, particularly where fairness of procedure is under challenge. (Para 5)
Writ Petitions Partly Allowed -- Provision of Appendix-5(3)(d) to Rule 15 of the Rules, 2008 requiring
appeal to be filed on day of examination itself, without reasoned order, struck down as arbitrary and ultra
vires -- Fresh Appellate Medical Board, including a doctor of the rank of Professor, to be constituted within
two months -- Petitioners' appeals to be considered afresh by newly constituted Appellate Medical Board --
Parties to bear their own costs.

Case Law Discussed
1. Ashok Kumar Singh Constable vs. State of U.P. & others, Writ-A No. 30417 of 2011
2. Rahul Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 16288 of 2011
3. Arvind Kumar Sonkar vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 1573 of 2007
4. Union of India and others vs. Parul Punia, 2016 (2) ADJ 14 (DB)
5. Arjun Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, Special Appeal Defective No. 540 of 2015
6. Ravi Shankar Dubey vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others, Writ-A No. 38185 of 2015
7. Breen vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union, [1971] 2 Q.B. 175
8. Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, (1973) 2 SCC 836
9. S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984
10. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4 SCC 407
11. Sant Lal Gupta and others vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13
SCC 336
12. Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496
13. Mohinder Singh Gill and others vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC
405
14. Veer Pal Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83
15. Union of India and others vs. Manjeet Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 257
16. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others, (1985) 1 SCC
641
17. Dev Dutta vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.)

1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners are candidates for appointment on the posts of
Constables in U.P. Police and other equivalent posts. The candidature of all the petitioners has been
rejected on medical grounds.

2. Before adverting to the issue involved in the petitions, the brief common facts of the case
are necessary to be referred as under:

3. The Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow issued a notification on 14th May, 2013, which was amended on 20th June, 2013 to
initiate recruitment process for filling the posts of Constables in U.P. Police. Pursuant thereto an
advertisement was issued inviting applications from the candidates against 20000 posts of Police
Constables.
8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
905
4. By the aforesaid subsequent notification dated 20th June, 2013, the posts of Police
Constables were increased from 20000 to 35500, and 4033 posts were advertised for Constables in
Provincial Armed Constabulary and 2077 posts of Firemen. It was mentioned in the advertisement
that the candidates who had applied for the posts of Constables in pursuance of the earlier
advertisement issued in the year 2011, their candidature will be considered as per the advertisement
of 2011 and they were required to fill another form for which no fee was directed to be charged
from them.

5. The candidates who had applied for the posts of Constables in pursuance of earlier
advertisement were provided the age relaxation also. The recruitment process consists of a
preliminary examination of 300 marks followed by a Physical Efficiency Test1, Main Written
Examination, Scrutiny of Documents and Medical Examination.

6. In the notification dated 14th May, 2013 it was provided that the Joint Examination-2011
was cancelled on 15th July, 2011 and a fresh advertisement was made for the Police Constables in
the Pay Band Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2000. In the said advertisement for the posts
of Constables, 10000 posts were unreserved, 5400 posts were reserved for the Other Backward
Classes, 4200 posts under the Scheduled Castes Category and 400 posts under Scheduled Tribes.
2% horizontal reservation was also provided to the dependents of Freedom Fighters, 5% for ExArmy Personnel and 5% for Homeguards and 20% for Female category.

7. It was also made clear that the number of the vacancies can be varied before the
preliminary examination. The last date for submission of the form was 18th August, 2013. A
brochure was issued containing detailed instructions and requirements under the relevant rules
regarding physical and written examinations. It provided that minimum height of the male
candidates of General, Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes should be 168 centimeters
and of the female candidate 152 centimeters; for the candidates under the Scheduled Tribes
category it was 160 centimeters for male and 147 centimeters for female candidate. It was also
mentioned that the examination shall be of 300 marks, wherein 150 marks were assigned for
General Knowledge and Current Affairs, 75 for Reasoning Ability and 75 for Numerical Ability.
Thirty-five percent of the marks was the minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary
examination.

8. It further provided that out of the successful candidates in the preliminary examination
against the existing vacancies, ten times candidates equivalent to ten times of the vacancies on the
basis of the reservation would be called to participate in the next step of examination i.e. Physical
Efficiency Test. The candidates who qualify the Preliminary Examination and PET, had to appear
in the Main Written Examination, which is of 300 marks. The Main Written Examination consists
of general awareness, mental ability, reasoning and comprehension. Thirty-five percent of the total
marks is the qualifying marks and it is not necessary to secure 35% in each paper. The Main
Written Examination is based on objective system. After the main written examination, a select list
is prepared and the testimonials are verified on the day when they are medically examined.
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The instructions contain details about the medical examination. The medical examination
of a candidate is conducted by the Board of Doctors. The instructions provide that the medical
examination shall be conducted in terms of the provisions of Health Manual. It would include the
height of the male and female candidates. It provides that the Medical Board shall follow the
instructions of 'iqfyl HkrhZ fpfdRlk ijh{kk izi=' (Police Recruitment Medical Test Proforma).

10. In the medical examination the following physical standards are to be examined:

Knock knee, bow legs, flat feet, and varicose veins, distant and near vision, colour
blindness, hearing test comprising Rinne's test, Webber's test and tests for vertigo etc. in terms of
the orders issued by the State Government from time to time.

11. The instruction further provides that the candidate who is dissatisfied with his medical
examination, can file an appeal on the same day. It further provides that if on the same day a
candidate fails to make an appeal, no appeal shall be entertained.

12. All the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have cleared Preliminary Written Test,
Physical Efficiency Test, Main Written Examination but they have been declared medically unfit by
the Medical Board.

13. On 16th July, 2015 the select list was declared and total 38191 candidates were
declared selected on the post of Constable in Civil Police, Constable in PAC and Firemen in U.P.
Fire Services Department. In the said result it is mentioned that the following number of posts are
vacant:

Constable Civil Police 1894

Constable PAC 278

Firemen 140

Thus total 2312 posts are still vacant.

14. All the petitioners in the writ petitions have been rejected in medical test.

15. It would be appropriate to mention the brief facts of each writ petition of this batch of
writ petitions which are enumerated below:

(I) Writ-A No. 52546 of 2015:

16. The petitioner is an OBC female category candidate. She had cleared all the tests but
was rejected in the medical test. It is stated that after her success in the main examination under the
OBC category a call letter was issued to her for appearing in the last stage of selection i.e. for
8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
907
document verification and the medical examination, which was scheduled to be held on 01st April,
2015 at Police Lines Amroha. On the scheduled date her documents were verified and after the
medical examination she was orally informed by the medical authority that she has knock-knee and
accordingly she was declared unfit. The petitioner has stated in the petition that immediately
thereafter the authorities issued instructions for unsuccessful candidates, who had been disqualified
in the medical examination, that if they desire, they can undergo for the re-medical examination. In
pursuance of the said instructions she get herself medically examined again. The examination was
conducted without any proper procedure or taking care of the instructions for conducting medical
examinations and she was again declared medically unfit due to knock-knee.

17. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said re-medical examination was nothing but
an empty formality and was conducted without following the procedure, the rules and the
instructions given in the brochure.

18. The petitioner states that since she was not satisfied with the manner in which the
medical examination was conducted, later she got herself medically examined by an Orthopedic
Surgeon, wherein she was found to be medically fit.

19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the medical examination of the
petitioner was totally illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the U.P. Police Constables and
Head Constables Services Rules, 20082. He submitted that Rule 11 of Chapter-III Part-II of Vol. V
of the Financial Handbook provides a detailed procedure for the medical examination, required to
be followed by the Medical Board. He has invited the attention of the Court to an order of a
Division Bench of this Court dated 21st November, 2007 passed in a batch of special appeals led by
Special Appeal No. 1573 of 2007 (Arvind Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. & others), wherein
the Division Bench has directed the Government to conduct re-medical examination by the newly
constituted Medical Board. He has also invited the attention of the Court to a large number of
interim orders passed in various writ petitions following the order of the Division Bench.

20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment of a learned Single
Judge of this Court dated 29.3.2011 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 16288 of
2011 (Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. & others), wherein this Court after examining the Rules, 2008
has found that there is no provision for re-examination by Medical Board.

21. In paragraph-75 of the writ petition an allegation has been made that at the time of
medical examination, a doctor of District Hospital, Amroha, who has been made party in personal
capacity as respondent no. 9 in writ petition, had made demand of an illegal gratification for an
amount of Rs. 15,000 from the petitioner and the petitioner has refused the same, therefore, the
petitioner has been declared medically unfit by an oral order.

22. It is also stated that in several districts in the State of U.P., doctors were caught redhanded and cash money was recovered from their possession. In support of the said statement the
petitioner has brought on the record a copy of the first information report relating to Case Crime
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

No. 220 of 2015, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh under Section 7, 8, 10 & 13 of the
Prevention of the Corruption Act, as annexure-14 to the writ petition.

23. The petitioner has also brought on the record the clippings of various news items
published in National newspapers Amar Ujla and Dainik Jagran that in district Sant Kabir Nagar
the District Magistrate directed to conduct a raid on the members of the Medical Board and on their
search a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- was found in their possession, with regard to which a first
information report has been lodged against those doctors.

(II) Writ-A No. 51517 of 2015:

24. Seven petitioners have joined this writ petition. All the petitioners have qualified the
Preliminary Examination, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Test. All of them have been rejected in
the medical examination.

25. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been communicated any reason for
their rejection by the Medical Board and by the oral order they were informed that they have been
found medically unfit.

26. This Court on 17th September, 2015 had asked the learned Standing Counsel to seek
instructions in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions which have been
taken on the record. In the instructions it is mentioned that the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been
rejected on the ground of knock-knee. The petitioner no. 5 has been rejected on the ground of
distance vision (left eye-6.9: Right eye-6.12), petitioner no. 6 on the ground of colour blindness,
and the petitioner no. 7 has been declared unfit on the ground of flat-feet.

27. It is averred that the petitioners had filed their appeal and in their fresh medical
examination, which was held at Moradabad, they were again rejected. All the petitioners have
disputed the findings of Medical Board and they have brought on the record the medical certificates
issued by the private medical doctors showing the petitioners medically fit.

28. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgement of a Division
Bench of this Court dated 21st November, 2007 passed in a batch of special appeals led by Special
Appeal No. 1573 of 2007 (Arvind Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. & others).

(III) Writ-A No. 52743 of 2015:

29. The petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14th May, 2013. He
belongs to OBC Male category. He had obtained 310.0637 marks. He was declared unsuccessful on
the medical ground. The petitioner's medical test was conducted at Reserve Police Lines, Mati,
Kanpur Dehat on 10th June, 2015 in which he was declared unsuccessful. The petitioner was
informed about the said fact on 13th July, 2015 by the second respondent from Mobile No.
8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
909
9454401472 that the petitioner was not present at the time of medical examination and his medical
papers have not been traced out.

30. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was present at the time of document verification
and he was declared successful in the document verification and in medical examination by an oral
order he was declared unfit.

31. The petitioner has impleaded the Incharge Doctor of Kanpur Dehat Selection Board in
his personal capacity and has made serious allegations of malafide in paragraph nos. 67 to 70 of the
writ petition. He has also brought on the record the newspaper clippings published in several
national newspapers regarding the serious allegations of gratification against the doctors who have
been the members of Medical Board.

32. I have heard Sri Vijay Gautam, Sri Anand Ji Mishra, Sri Kaushal Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav and Sri Aditya Kumar Yadav, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

33. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have qualified all the
stages of recruitment but in the medical examination they have been rejected illegally. The medical
examination was not conducted fairly and the petitioners were orally informed by the medical
authorities that they are medically unfit.

34. It is stated that no written order was furnished thus, without disclosing reason, they
have been declared unsuccessful illegally. It is further submitted that in absence of any reason
furnished to them, the provision for filing an appeal on the same day is illusory and empty
formality.

35. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the medical examination was
not fair and transparent and has been conducted contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules.
The procedure for medical examination has been laid down under Appendix-3, 4 & 5 to Rule 15 of
the Rules, 2008 particularly the Appendix-5, which has been violated.

36. They further submitted that Appendix-5(d) provides that any candidate who is not
satisfied by his medical examination, shall file an appeal on the date of examination. According to
learned counsel for the petitioners, the said clause is arbitrary and ultra-vires as well as it is
unreasonable as it does not give any sufficient reasonable time to a candidate to file an appeal.

37. Amplifying the submissions, they urged that providing such a short time makes the
provision of the appeal mere empty formality. He urged that on this ground alone the Appendix-V
to Rule-15 of the Rules, 2008 suffers from vice of arbitrariness and may be declared as ultra-vires.
It was contended that in view of wide spread allegations which have been highlighted by the
national newspapers, the candidates do not have any faith in the Medical Board which is constituted
to re-examine the candidates on their appeal. Lastly they urged that even the Medical Board simply
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

repeats the same finding of earlier medical examination and it does only formality. The result of the
Medical Board is not communicated to a candidate in writing and no reason is furnished to the
candidates, however, they are only orally informed about their rejection. It was also submitted that
the fact that all appeals have been rejected, itself shows that the medical appeal is an eye wash.

38. It was urged that Appendix-5 to the Rules, 2008 provides only standardized equipments
having Indian Standard Institute certification or duly certified by the Directorate of Weight and
Measure are to be used for Physical Standard Test Examination. However, the respondents have not
used the standardized equipments and the measurement of their heights was done manually.

39. Learned Standing Counsel, who has received instructions, which have been taken on
the record, submits that the petitioners have not been found medically fit and the candidates who
have been rejected in medical examination, can file an appeal before the Medical Board on the
same day. The petitioners have been re-examined by the Medical Board and they have been found
medically unfit, hence their appeals were rejected. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the
original record produced by him and the instructions wherein the name of deficiency in respect of
each candidate has been recorded. Lastly, he urged that for appointment on the post of constables in
the police force, medical fitness is a paramount consideration. According to him, the Rules do not
require giving reason at first instance by the Medical Board or by Appellate Medical Board. In case
reasons are furnished to each candidate, it would cause unnecessary delay in completing the
recruitment process.

40. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioners for re-constitution of a fresh Medical Board to re-examine the petitioners.

41. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

42. The recruitment on the post of Constable in Civil Police is regulated by the Uttar
Pradesh Police Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008. The said Rules have been
framed under Section 46 read with sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. Part-III of
the Rules, 2008 deals with recruitment. Rule-5 provides the source of recruitment on the post of
constable. The post of constable is filled by 100 per cent direct recruitment. Part-V lays down the
procedure for recruitment. Rule-15 provides the detailed procedure for direct recruitment of
constables.

43. Regard may be had to the fact that there are three recent amendments in the Rules,
2008. The relevant amendments in respect of the recruitment for our purposes are; (i) the Uttar
Pradesh Police Constables and Head Constables Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2013, which
was published in the gazette on 09th April, 2013; (ii) the Uttar Pradesh Police Constables and Head
Constables Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2013, published on 10th May, 2013; and (iii) the
Uttar Pradesh Police Constables and Head Constables Service (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2013,
published on 04th June, 2013.
8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
911
44. To answer of the aforesaid question, it will be necessary to have the benefit of relevant
sets of rules governing the subject :

"15. Procedure for direct recruitment of Constable.---(a) Application.--- (i) A
candidate shall fill the application form from one District only. Regarding allocation of
Examination Center, the candidate may give more than one option. However, Board may allocate
center other than those indicated by the candidate.

(ii) The details of the information regarding educational qualification, age,
minimum qualifying standards for each category of examination, including physical, written,
medical etc., minimum qualifying marks for Written Examination subject wise, copy of O.M.R.
sheet for practice and other important guidelines as may be determined by the Board from time to
time shall be provided by the Board on its web-site or any other method as it deems necessary.

(iii) The applications shall be invited by the Board giving the applicants adequate
time for application. The candidate shall be personally and solely responsible for its accuracy and
completeness, if Form of any candidate Found incomplete, wrong or having inaccurate information,
this Form shall be cancelled.

(iv) An applicant shall certify himself all his certificates and documents and be
responsible for their genuineness and correctness.

(v) The application form may also include identification details like Unique
Identity Number, thumb and finger impressions, photograph or bio mertrics in appropriate manner
as prescribed by the Board from time to time.

(vi) The head of the department may fix an application fee for any recruitment.

(vii) The Board shall have the right to summarily reject the candidature of an
applicant for any incompleteness or inaccuracy or variation or conflict with any previous or
subsequent information submitted by the candidate.

(viii) The Government may change the number of vacancies for any recruitment at
any time before the first examination and may also cancel any recruitment at any time or stage of
recruitment without assigning any reason thereof.

(b) Call Letter--Call letters for candidate shall be made available at least ten days
before the examination.

(c) Preliminary Written Test.---Candidates whose applications are found to be
correct may be required to appear in an objective type preliminary written test of qualifying nature.
The test shall be of one paper of 300 marks and contain questions on general knowledge, current
affairs, reasoning ability and numeric ability of appropriate level, the detailed syllabus for which
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

shall be notified by the Board from time to time. The candidate who fails to obtain 35% marks shall
not be eligible for recruitment. From the candidates who pass the preliminary written test, a number
equal to ten times the number of vacancies shall be eligible for the physical Efficiency Test.

(d) Physical Efficiency Test.---The eligible candidates shall be required to appear
in a Physical Efficiency Test which shall be of 100 marks. The procedure for conducting the
Physical Efficiency Test shall be such as prescribed in Appendix-2.

(e) Main Written Examination.---The eligible candidates who qualify Physical
Efficient Test shall be required to appear in the main written examination which will be of objective
type shall carry 300 marks. The written paper will consist of questions covering, general awareness,
mental ability, reasoning and comprehension. The detailed syllabus for the examination shall be
notified by the Board. The procedure for conducting written examination shall be such as
mentioned in Appendix-3. Candidates who fail to obtain 35% marks in the main written
examination shall not be eligible for recruitment.

(f) Scrutiny of Document and Medical Examination.---The Board shall prepare a
merit list for each category of candidates on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidates
according to the orders of the State Government and the provisions of enactments for the time being
in force.

The scrutiny of documents of the above candidates shall be carried out as per
Appendix-4. In case any document is found to be manipulated, inaccurate or forged during the
scrutiny or at any time after the scrutiny, the candidature of the applicant will be cancelled at the
discretion of the Board and Head of Department. Those candidates whose documents are found in
order will undergo for Medical Examination as per Appendix-5.

Note.- The Medical Board shall examine the candidate and deficiencies thereof
such as knock knee, bow-legs, flat feet, varicose veins, distant and near vision, colour blindness,
hearing test comprising of Rinne's test, Webber's test and shall also tests for vertigo, speech defects
etc. of the candidate as may be notified from time to time by the State Government.

(g) Selection and Merit List.---The Board shall prepare a final select list of
candidates in order of their merit, keeping in view the reservation policy of the State.

If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, preference will be given to the
candidates who have obtained higher marks in the main written examination. If two or more
candidates secure the same marks in main written examination then the candidate who are older
will be placed higher in the merit list. In case two or more candidates have the same date of birth,
the candidates possessing preferential qualification as mentioned in Rule 9 will be placed higher in
the merit list.
8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
913
The final list shall be published in Website/Notice Board. This list shall be
forwarded to the Head of Department, who will forward it to the Appointing Authority for further
action.

Note.---If two or more candidates obtain equal marks then the merit list would be
finalized, according to the following procedure:-

(i) Such candidate will be given preference, having Preferential qualification, if
any. A candidate having more than one preferential qualification will get benefit of only one
preferential qualification.

(ii) If despite the above, two or more candidates have the same rank then such
candidate will be given preference who secures higher marks in main written examination.

(iii) If despite the above two or more candidates have equal marks then such
candidate will be given preference who is older in age.

(iv) If in spite of above, consideration still the marks are equal, and date of birth is
same and marks in the main written examination are also the same then such candidate will be
given preference in order of the first letter of the English alphabet of the first name as mentioned in
High School Certificate.

The merit-list shall be published in website/ Notice Board.

(ii) The Board shall prepare a select list of candidates in order of the merit, keeping
in view the reservation policy guidelines and the total number of vacancies notified to the Board
which will be subject to character verification by the Appointing Authority. The select list shall be
forwarded to the Head of Department who will after approval forward it to the Appointing
Authority for further action."

45. The details of the procedure to be followed for conducting the physical efficiency test,
the main written examination, the scrutiny of the documents and medical examinations are further
given in detail in Appendix-2, 3, 4 & 5 to Rule 15 of the Rules, 2008.

46. The Appendix-2 provides that the physical efficiency test will be conducted by a team
comprising of six officers. One of them is a Medical Officer nominated by the Chief Medical
Officer. It requires amongst others that physical efficiency test for constables shall consist of 4.8
km. run for male candidates to be completed within 30 minutes, and 2.5 km. run for female
candidates to be completed within 18 minutes. It further provides that manual timing shall not be
permitted and the standardized electronic timing equipment along with CCTV coverage and
biomatric with adequate equipment will be used to ensure accuracy, transparency and avoid
impersonation. The Appendix further lays down the detailed process which is to be followed by the
team.
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

47. A candidate who is successful in the Physical Efficiency Test is required to appear in
written examination. The written test carries 300 marks, 35% marks is the minimum required marks
for being successful in the said examination. The Appendix-4 provides the procedure for scrutiny of
the documents with regard to eligibility, relaxation and preferential qualification. The scrutiny of
the documents is done before the candidate is medically examined. The documents are scrutinized
by a committee consisting of, amongst others, District Magistrate or an officer nominated by him
not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District
Inspector of Schools and others.

48. The Appendix-5 gives a detailed procedure for physical standard test and medical
examination of the candidate. The issue raised in this batch of petitions relates to medical
examination of the candidates, hence Appendix-5 is necessary to be quoted as under:

"Appendix-5

Procedure for Physical Standards Test and Medical Examination of the Candidates

1. Medical Examination Board.---Candidates found eligible in the prescribed
written examination and physical examinations and short listed and whose documents have been
found to be in order after the scrutiny vide.

Appendix 4 will undergo the Medical Examination.

2. Physical Standards Test.---The Medical Examination shall, in addition to
parameters prescribed vide Point III below, include the Physical Standards Test consisting of a
height, chest and weight measurement for male and female candidate as the case may be.

(1) The minimum physical standard for male candidates are as follows:---

(a) Measurement of Height.---(i) For General/ other Backward classes and
Scheduled Castes candidates shall be 168 Centimetres.

(ii) For tribal candidates the minimum height is 160 Centimetres.

(b) Measurement of Chest.---For the candidates belonging to General / Other
Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes minimum chest measurement shall be 79 Centimeters
without expansion and at least 84 Centimeters with expansion and for Scheduled Tribes 77
Centimeters without expansion and not less than 82 Centimeters on expansion.

Note.---Minimum 5 Centimeters chest expansion is essential.

(2) The minimum physical standard for female candidates.
8 All. Vandana Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
915
(a) Measurement of Height.---(i) The minimum height for General/Other
Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes women candidates is 152 Centimeters.

(ii) The minimum height for Scheduled Tribes women is 147 Centimeters.

(b) Measurement of Weight.---Minimum 40 Kg.

(3) The minimum Physical Standards of qualification of each test is to be displayed
very prominently on boards in the Stadium/ Police Line wherever the test is conducted before
conducting the examination.

3. Doctors to examine as per Medical Manual.

Note.---(1) Only standardized equipment having Indian Standard Institute
certification or duly certified by the Directorate of Weights and Measures are to be used for
Physical Standard Test Examination.

(4) The Medical Board comprising one representative each belonging to Minority,
Other Backward Class and Scheduled Caste shall examine candidates according to "Police
Recruitment Medical Examination Form" as prescribed and codified by the Head of the Department
in consultation with Director General Medical Health. This Form will be available on the Board
website and also displayed at the place of medical examination.

(a) The Doctors will examine the candidates in accordance with the Medical
Manual, if any, and announce the result on the day of the Medical Examination.

(b) The result of medical examination will be displayed on the notice Board outside
the premises at the end of the day.

(c) The Board will explore and try to institute a system of on-line record of medical
examination directly on a remote server with auditable trail of changes and each change bearing a
time stamp. No changes will be allowed after final submission of a record.

(d) Any candidate not satisfied by his medical examination, shall file an appeal on
the day of examination itself. No appeal with respect to the medical examination shall be
entertained if the Candidate fails to appeal on the day of his medical examination and
announcement of the result of the same. The appeal should be disposed of by the medical Board
constituted for the purpose within one month of the appeal being filed.

(e) The members of the medical board who are found to give the wrong report
willfully will be liable for criminal proceedings.
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(f) The Medical Examination is only qualifying in nature and it has no effect on the
merit list."

49. As can be seen from a bare reading of the Rules, 2008 that a detailed and exhaustive
procedure has been laid down for a fair selection.

50. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in
the case of Ashok Kumar Singh Constable v. State of U.P. & others, Writ-A No. 30417 of
2011, wherein the petitioner, a candidate for the post of Constable, was rejected on medical ground.
He was found fit by the Medical Board and was appointed on 10th July, 2005 as Constable in Civil
Police. However, his services were terminated after completing training in the year 2007 on the
ground that he is colour blind. It was challenged on the ground that no opportunity was afforded.
The said case is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the petitioners have not been appointed
as they have been declared medically unfit.

51. In another judgement in the batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 16288 of 2011
(Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others), the Court has directed for further medical
examination. In the said case the petitioners were declared medically unfit by the Regional Medical
Board constituted at the training centre. Initially the petitioners were declared fit by the Medical
Board. Later, they were further medically tested and were declared unfit and they were prevented
from completing their training on the ground that the second medical examination was not
warranted. It was urged that under the service rules there is no provision for re-examination by the
Medical Board. The learned Single Judge in the said case relied on a judgement in Arvind Kumar
Sonkar (supra). The said judgement has been distinguished by the latter Division Bench in Parul
Punia (supra), wherein it was found that Arvind Kumar Sonkar's case was decided on the basis of
consent.

52. In the next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. Arvind
Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. And others, Special Appeal No. 1573 of 2007, the selection was
in respect of the year 2006 and it was a case before the amendment was made in the Rules in 2009,
2011 and 2013. Moreover, the impugned orders were set aside on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice. In that case also, the petitioners were selected against regular posts and
they were working as constable and without affording any opportunity their services were
terminated. In view of the said facts, the said case is distinguishable.

53. There is another aspect of the matter.