Allahabad High Court
Shilesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 December, 2020
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10340 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shilesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The controversy involved in the present writ petition regarding re-medical examination of candidates who had passed physical standard test and found place in select list and, consequently were to be sent for training but their candidature came to be questioned in re-medical examination by the Board, has come to be addressed to in Writ-A No. 14195 of 2018, in which in concluding part of the judgment dated 05.09.2018 it has been held thus:
"The procedure under rule 15(d) read with Schedule - II is elaborate and attaches finality on the determination of physical standard of a candidate. At the stage of conduct of medical examination, the scrutiny under Appendix - 3 is essentially with regard to deficiencies in a candidate, such as, knock knee, bow legs, flat feet, varicose veins, distance and near vision, etc. and not with respect to physical standards of a candidate. The scope of examination is essentially distinct at two levels. While determination of physical standards is addressed by rule 15(d) read with Appendix - 2, the medical examination of candidate by virtue of Appendix - 3 is centred on his/her deficiencies. Rule 13 contemplates examination of physical fitness of a candidate for ensuring that the candidate possesses good mental and bodily health and is free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. No doubt, note appended to rule 13 provides that medical board shall examine the candidate for physical standards prescribed for height, chest and weight measurement, but there exists no stipulation in Appendix - 3 regarding use of standardized equipments for ascertaining such physical standards. The manner of determining such physical attributes or use of instruments for the purpose is not specified.
The argument of Shri Manish Goyal that a Doctor, on account of his skill, can better determine the physical standards of a candidate, i.e., height, chest and weight, even in the absence of standardized equipments, cannot be accepted. It is, otherwise, not in issue that no such standardized equipments were, in fact, provided to the medical board at the time of medical examination. The assessment of physical standard of a candidate by use of standardized equipments, having Bureau of Indian Standards certification or duly certified by the Director of Weights and Measures in terms of clause (4) of Appendix - 2, is entitled to greater weight, then an assessment of physical standard by the medical board in absence of such standardized equipments. Assessment of physical standard by the Committee constituted under Appendix - 2 to the Rules of 2015 with aid of standardized equipments, which, otherwise, attains finality under the Rules, therefore, is liable to be preferred over the determination made by the medical board in terms of Appendix - 3, which had no standardized equipments provided to it for the purposes.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the inescapable conclusion is that the respondents were not justified in declaring the petitioner to be medically unfit on the ground that he does not possess physical standard specified in Appendix - 2, even after a declaration by the competent authority in terms of Appendix - 2 that petitioner possesses physical standards as prescribed in the Rules. The report of the medical board, to the extent it declares the petitioner to be short in height and having incomplete chest expansion, stands quashed. Since the medical board has, otherwise, not found the petitioner to be suffering from any deficiency and petitioner possesses physical standards specified in the Rules, as such, he is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. "
(Emphasis added) It is thus argued that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the above judgement as the petitioner who had applied for selection as constable in civil police pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.11.2018 had passed physical standard test, and his name had been placed in the select list but he has come to be non suited in re-medical examination by the Board.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above legal and factual position and submits that this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the above quoted judgment.
In view of above, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ- A No. 14195 of 2018 decided on 05.09.2018.
Order Date :- 18.12.2020 Sanjeev