Allahabad High Court
Vikas Kumar vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 19 February, 2025
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24034 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19385 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vikas Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kranti Kiran Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The case was heard on 11.02.2025 and the Court has passed the following order:
" 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Medical Board conducted medical in the teeth of guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles. He also pointed out that to reject the candidature on the ground of minimal hearing loss as per para-3 (J), audiomentry test is must before giving final opinion, but in the present case, same has never been conducted during the course of medical examination, therefore, the impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.
3. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions from the respondent No.3 about the matter.
4. List this case on 19.02.2025 as fresh. "
3. Pursuant to order dated 11.02.2025, learned Standing Counsel has produced instruction along with audiometry report dated 05.11.2024, which is taken on record.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in the audiometry report, petitioner is having minimal hearing loss, in which, he was not found fit. He also pointed out that in the matter of expert committee, in usual course, Court may not interfere in the matter of Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ - A No.- 5668 of 2021 decided on 3rd August, 2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. I have perused the instruction dated 11.02.2025 as well as judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Ankit Kumar (supra). In the instruction, it is clearly stated that audiometry test of the petitioner has been conducted, therefore, sole ground of filing petition is having no force. Apart that this, Court in the matter of Ankit Kumar (Supra) has also taken a fair view that in usual course, Court may not interfere with the opinion of Medical Board and Review Medical Board.
7. The paragraph Nos.32 and 33 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Kumar (supra) is being quoted here :-
"32. Further, it is also pertinent to mention that in the absence of any material on record to substantiate that the private doctor or doctor of a government hospital who investigated the petitioner had adopted the correct process to conclude that the petitioner does not suffer any disability, it would be improper and unwarranted to doubt the report of the Medical Board and Review Medical Board by relying upon the report obtained by a candidate from outside. If such a process is adopted, that would not only derail the selection process but would also cast suspicion on the selection process.
33. Thus, in this view of the fact, this Court believes that unless and until the candidate demonstrates by placing genuine and authentic material that the opinion of the Medical Board or Review Medical Board is erroneous or capricious or vague and smacks of malafide, the Court should refrain from interfering with the opinion of Medical Board and Review Medical Board which is a body constituted of experts to assess the fitness of candidate as per the norms and standards prescribed in respect of fitness of a candidate who is supposed to work in the police force."
8. In light of the facts of this case as well as law laid down by this Court in the matter ofAnkit Kumar (Supra), no interference is required.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Amit