Medical Board in a recruitment process, SPECIAL APPEAL U.P High Court

Case:­ SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. ­ 356 of 2020
Appellant:­ Manish Kumar
Respondent:­ The State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant:­ Rajneesh Tripathi, Ashish Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent:­ C.S.C.

Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. (Per Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Headline Summary – Medical Board in a recruitment process – Opinion to be given credence – Not to be interfered unless arbitrary, casual, inchoate, perfunctory, or vague.

• The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 211 days. Delay in filing the special appeal has been sufficiently explained.
• Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
• In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the special appeal.
• The delay condonation application no. 1 of 2020 is allowed.
• The office is directed to allot a regular number to this appeal.
• Challenge in the present special appeal is to the judgment and order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ­A No. 17576 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
• The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.
• The matter pertains to the ‘Male and Female Constable Recruitment 2018’ initiated pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board.
• The principal relief sought in the writ petition was for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to re­appear in the re­medical examination and further that a seat may be reserved for him until his grievance is redressed by the respondent authorities.
• The learned Single Judge, after taking notice of the facts of the case, has dismissed the writ petition in the following terms:­

“Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police but he has ultimately been non­suited as he was declared medically unfit. The orders passed by the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board have not been annexed. The opinion of the Medical Board, however, is sought to be assailed with reference to a certificate issued by the private Doctor.

The consistent opinion of the Medical Board and Appellate Medical Board would ordinarily not be interfered with, unless there is some prima facie material to doubt the veracity of such opinion. The medical report of the private Doctor also shows that the petitioner is now fit to resume duty. According to the petitioner he was diagnosed with Varicose Veins by the Medical Board, and there is no specific opinion even of the private Doctor that petitioner does not suffer from such physical ailment.

In that view of the matter and in light of the observations made by this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Rahul, reported in 2016(3) ADJ 327, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.”

• Learned counsel for the appellant­writ petitioner has tried to assail the judgment under appeal by contending that after being declared medically unfit by the Medical Board and also by the Appellate Medical Board, the petitioner had raised a claim for re­medical examination but the same had not been considered by the authorities.
• Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge by submitting that the petitioner having been declared medically unfit by a duly constituted Medical Board and the said finding having been affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board, there was no further provision for re­medical examination, and the writ petition had rightly been dismissed.
• We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
• The scope of interference in matters relating to the 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.
• The Courts have, time and again, emphasized 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.
• 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 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.
• In a case where the recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules, whereunder a procedure has been prescribed for testing the medical fitness of candidates by a duly constituted Medical Board, the report of the Medical Board is not to be normally interfered with, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by a prospective candidate.
• In the instant case, the writ petitioner has been found medically unfit by a duly constituted Medical Board and the said finding with regard to his unsuitability on medical grounds has been affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board, and further, the opinion of a private medical practitioner which was sought to be relied upon in the writ petition also does not contain any specific opinion that the petitioner was not suffering from the ailment on the basis of which he had been declared unfit by the Medical Board.
• In the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that no further indulgence is required to be granted to the appellant­writ petitioner in this regard. This is, more so, since it is not the case of the petitioner that the decision of the Medical Board was arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with the procedure under the relevant statutory recruitment rules.
• 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 Vs. State of U.P. and others1 and Md. Arshad Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others2 wherein it was held that matters relating to the 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.
• In an Intra­Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order.
• In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2019.
• For reasons stated above, the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.

(Order Date:­ 30.7.2020)