Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder and Dr Y. K. Srivastava, JJ. dismissed the present appeal since this was not a case where decision of the Medical Board was arbitrary, capricious or in violation of recruitment rules hence the court found no infirmity in the impugned order.

The issue was whether production of a subsequent medical examination report by the appellant-writ petitioner will override or set at naught, the medical opinion of the Regional/District Medical Boards, which show that the appellant-writ petitioner was suffering from an ailment in the left ear and accordingly was assessed unfit. The advocate for the appellant placed reliance upon a Single Bench decision of the High Court in order to contend that a fresh Medical Board ought to be directed to be constituted to re-examine the appellant.

The Court was of the view that petitioner failed to show that the medical opinion of the respective Medical Boards brought on record were doubtful as compared the medical report/opinion relied upon by the petitioner as all the medical opinions declare the petitioner that he is suffering from ailment in the left ear. The Court, emphasising the need for caution and circumspection, discussed the judgment in Union of India v. Parul Punia wherein it was stated:-

“9. …. 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.”

The Court held that in cases where a recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules where under 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, and that too, solely on the basis of a claim sought to be set up by a candidate on the basis of some subsequent report procured by him from a private practitioner. Since this 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, hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal stands dismissed. [Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P., Special Appeal Defective No. 117 of 2020, decided on 13-02-2020]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.