Satyam Singh v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 5 Others

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12267 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satyam Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karm Veer Yadav,Vindhya Washini Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶1Heard Sri Karm Veer Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶2It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the vacancy for filling posts of Constables GD Central Armed Police Force (CAPFs) SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam rifles Examination 2024. The petitioner had appeared in the said examinations and was also subjected to document verification and medical examination. The Medical Board Constituted to examine the petitioner and found the petitioner to be unfit due to two reasons : (a) Stammering (b) Hydrocele B/L Testis.

¶3Against the medical board dated 11.11.2024, the petitioner requested to be examined for a review medical board as per the Rules applicable in the present case and accordingly the review medical board examined the petitioner on 15.11.2024 where again the petitioner was found to be suffering from Hydrocele.

¶4Considering the fact that two medical boards have consistently found returned a finding with regard to Hydrocele, it cannot be stated that there is any infirmity in the said findings.

¶5The only document annexed by the petitioner in support of his submissions is a medical certificate issued by the District Male Hospital, Ayodhya, there is no mention of any diagnosis or treatment or detection of any infirmity with the petitioner. The said document is not reliable inasmuch as the petitioner had subjected for medical examination with regard to certain disease for which medicines were given to him.

¶6It is well known that a per son has to be medically examined for the purpose of appointment in any government service, he presents the letter to the Chief Medical Officer who subsequently appoints a Medical Board to examine the candidate and. Clearly the certificate annexed is not a report by any medical board but merely a prescription for the ailments suffered by the petitioner and consequently is not relevant for the purposes to indicate that he does or does not suffer from Hydrocele.

¶7For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the constant findings recorded by the Medical Board. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 18.12.2024 Ravi/ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench