Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37627 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20944 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vikash Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kranti Kiran Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Gautam,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent to reject the candidature of the petitioner for being found medically unfit. 3. It is submitted that in the medical examination, the guidelines prescribed for the same were not followed. 4. Instructions have been obtained by Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent, which are taken on record. It transpires that the petitioner was hospitalized on 12.11.2024 and discharged on 13.11.2024. During these two days, petitioner's Blood Pressure was taken at 12:40, 15:30, 17:45, 19:10, 08:23, 10:12, 15:52 and 18:19 hours and the Blood Pressure exceeded the parameters prescribed to declare a candidate medically fit. 5. In such view of the matter, once the petitioner has been disqualified on the ground that he was found medically unfit in the review medical test, this Court cannot entertain this petition to question the medical fitness findings of a duly constituted Board of doctors prescribed for the same by the Department. 6. This Court in the case of Upendr Kumar Vs. The Union of India & 5 Ors., passed in Writ-A No.19476 of 2023 has observed vide paragraphs 6 and 7 thus: "6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that once the review medical examination has been held after the first medical examination, then there is no question of this Court exercising power over and above the opinion rendered by the review medical board that consisted of expert doctors. This Court is not possessed with requisite expertise in the medical field so as to sit as an appellate authority over and above the opinion rendered by the review medical board. In the case of Vivek Kumar vs. State of UP & ors passed in special Appeal Defective No.117 of 2020, the Division Bench of this Court has held that thus: "11. In a case where a recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules whereunder 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(s) procured by him from a private practitioner(s). 12. It 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. " 7. Even otherwise, law is well settled that "unless 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." [Union of India v. Parul Punia, 2016 (2) ADJ 14]. This judgment has been followed by a coordinate bench in the case of Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors (Writ - A No. 5668 of 2021, decided on 03.08.2001). Recently in the case of Shahbaj Khan v. Union of India & Ors (Writ - A No. 15248 of 2023) decided on 13.07.2023, I have referred to another later judgment of Division Bench in the case of Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 117 of 2020, wherein it had been observed that "In a case where a recruitment process has been carried out as per prescribed statutory rules whereunder 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(s) procured by him from a private practitioner(s). It 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." Even I have followed this legal view recently in the case of Miss Neha v. State of U.P. & 4 Ors (Writ - A No. 10905 of 2023)." 7. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad