Vipendra Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4339 of 2013 =========================================================== Vipendra Kumar Yadav, Son of Nandji Yadav, Resident of Village-+ P.O. Chakki, Mathura Dera, P.S. Brahmpur Dist Buxar.
.... .... Petitioner-Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Ministry of Home Affair New Delhi.
2. The D.G., I.T.B.P. Block- 2, C.G.O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.
3. Dy. Director (NWR) Staff Selection Commission Block no. -3, Gr. floor Kendriya Sadan Sector 9 Chandigarh 160017.
4. Dr. Prasant Kumar, Sain Medical Officer, D.M.O. Hazaribagh Centre.
5. Dy. Regional Director Ministry of Personnel P.G. and Pension Department of Personnel and Training Staff Selection Commission (NWR) Kendriya Sadan Sector-9, Ground Floor, Chandigarh.
6. The D.I.G., I.T.B.P. Bihar Sector, Bailey Road. .... .... Respondents-Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D Sanjay (ADDL. SOC. GEN.) Mr. Anshuman Singh, C.G.C.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 07-08-2017 In the matter of appointment of the petitioner as G.D. constable in I.T.B.P., finding the petitioner to be medically unfit as he was not meeting the required criteria for eyesight, failed in the medical examination conducted by the Specialized Medical Board, the writ petition in question was filed and the Writ Court held that for appointment to specialized service like I.T.B.P., if a Medical Board has given an opinion that the candidate is unfit for various reasons, the same cannot be substituted or interfered with in a petition under
Patna High Court LPA No.1566 of 2016 dt.07-08-2017 2/3 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Except for contending that the petitioner meets the minimum requirement of vision stipulated in the advertisement, we find that the respondents have considered the matter and taking note of the following factors as indicated by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the learned Writ Court refused to interfere into the matter:
"6.That with regard to the averment made in paragraph no.3 of the rejoinder petition, it is stated that the petitioner has been declared medically unfit in DME and RME due to defective vision Rt.6/9, Lt.6/6 and cannot be considered for selection either, he has obtained higher marks than that of the minimum cutoff. As the standing policy of the Government is that only those persons who are fully fit in all respects are to be recruited to the CAPFs. The reasons for that are the personnel of the CAPFs are issued with lethal weapons and are expected to use them against insurgent/terrorists and enemies during war. If any of the personnel of CAPFs is not fully fit, he/she will either not be able to protect himself/herself or his/her colleagues in a battle with insurgent/terrorist groups and enemies or he/she will run the risk of killing innocent people or fellow personnel especially if his/her eyesight is weak"
Once for appointment to para military force, a decision is taken based on the expert opinion of a Medical Board, a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit an appellate authority over the said decision and take a different view. The learned Writ Court having acted in accordance to the requirements of law, we see no ground to interfere. The appeal is,
Patna High Court LPA No.1566 of 2016 dt.07-08-2017 3/3 therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.08.2017 Transmission Date